ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Minister of State was asked-

Swindon to Kemble Railway Line

Laurence Robertson: What recent assessment he has made of progress on his Department's feasibility study into the doubling of the Swindon to Kemble railway line; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Mole: Officials at the Department for Transport are currently in detailed discussions with Network Rail to determine an acceptable price for this work along with time scales for construction. We hope to be in a position to give further information on the matter in the near future.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Do I take it that there will be a decision to go ahead with the redoubling of the line, which is important to people who live in Cheltenham and Gloucester-a major town and an historic major city? The rail link between those places and London is unacceptably slow, unreliable and expensive, and people in the area, including many of my constituents, need to see an improvement. Will the Minister give us an assurance that we will move in the right direction on this one?

Chris Mole: The Secretary of State and the Minister for the South West strongly support the scheme, which opens up the possibility for increases in service frequency to Gloucester and beyond, as well as providing an improved diversionary route to and from south Wales. Departmental officials, as I have said, are working closely with Network Rail to ensure that it can introduce a scheme that is affordable within the resources available to the region.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend has said, but if Network Rail has come up with a figure of £65 million, rather than £45 million, which is what we thought that it would be, can we have an urgent meeting with him and Network Rail to look at how we can make the scheme affordable, because as my neighbour, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), has said, it is vital that that programmed work is undertaken?

Chris Mole: I am always happy to discuss with local Members progress on schemes in their areas. If Network Rail comes up with one figure or another, we will continue to discuss it.

James Gray: I, too, broadly welcome the redoubling of the line, largely through my constituency, on behalf of my constituents who commute from Kemble. None the less, in proposing these plans, will the Minister bear in mind the interests of the people who live alongside the line, particularly in the village of Minety, who are concerned that there will be too much extra traffic on the line, and who seek local improvements if the redoubling goes ahead?

Chris Mole: We always expect the concerns of local constituents to be taken into account, but the objective of the improvements is to enable additional trains to run and to provide the option of a diversionary route for south Wales.

Norman Baker: The Swindon to Kemble stretch of line is of major strategic significance, and it is a public policy failure that we have not been able to redouble it so far. Given the expected increase in passenger traffic over the next 10 or 20 years, will we have a policy of reopening lines and stations that should not have been closed in the first place, and of redoubling lines that should not have been singled? If the Scots and the Welsh can successfully reopen railway lines, why can we not do so in England?

Chris Mole: Of course, we can and do, but it is a question of the affordability of any scheme that is introduced at any particular time. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party would make additional resources available for capital investment in the railways, it is something to which we would be sympathetic.

Ticket Offices

Lynne Featherstone: What recent representations he has received on railway station ticket office opening times in Hornsey and Wood Green constituency.

Chris Mole: No representations have been received on this matter since the hon. Lady last wrote to the Secretary of State about it in October 2009.

Lynne Featherstone: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Secretary of State's successful intervention to halt the plans of South West Trains to close ticket offices. What consideration has his Department given to using those powers on First Capital Connect in my constituency? What criteria does he use for such an intervention, and will he make a commitment to review the recent closures, which have damaged safety at stations in my constituency, with a view to using those powers in Hornsey and Wood Green?

Mr. Speaker: I heard three questions, but one answer will suffice.

Chris Mole: The Secretary of State has no powers to object to major changes under the ticketing and settlement agreement where passenger representative groups have not sustained objections. In this case, FCC agreed to monitor sales of tickets at weekends over an eight-week period last autumn. The Department has not yet received details of that assessment, and will continue to pursue that train operating company for that data, which are months overdue. I am sure that in raising the question, the hon. Lady has reminded FirstGroup of its commitment.

Tramlink (Crystal Palace)

Andrew Pelling: How much funding his Department has provided to the Greater London Authority for the extension of Tramlink to Crystal Palace.

Sadiq Khan: The Department has not received any bids for funding an extension to the Croydon Tramlink.
	The Department for Transport provides substantial funding to Transport for London in the form of a block grant. My Department's funding for TfL has risen dramatically since 2000, more than doubling to just less than £3 billion in 2009-10 and rising to £3.3 billion next year. That funding is not ring-fenced to specific projects, and it is for the Mayor and TfL to prioritise spending to deliver transport services in London as they see fit.

Andrew Pelling: The Minister is right. Substantial moneys have been given for investment in public transport in London, but the Crystal Palace extension, which was on the agenda under Ken Livingstone's mayoralty, offered the prospect of regeneration for deprived parts of my constituency. Traders in Upper Norwood strongly support such a scheme, and there is close to unanimous support in the community. Is it time for the Government, Transport for London and the Mayor to get together to try and get the scheme back on the agenda?

Sadiq Khan: I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents always watch Transport questions. If they are not doing so, it is important that he reports back to them the bad news that the current Mayor's business plan for 2009 includes no proposals for the Croydon Tramlink. In his draft transport strategy, the Mayor mentions the extension of Tramlink after 2020, with no commitment to any additional funding. One of the downsides of voting for the present Mayor is that areas such as Croydon are neglected.

First Capital Connect (Thameslink)

Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of the effects on the economy of London of recent disruptions in First Capital Connect's Thameslink service.

Sadiq Khan: There have been severe problems with First Capital Connect's service. The service continues to be unacceptable in terms of cancellations, punctuality and passenger service and information. The poor service has caused disruption for passengers and will inevitably have had some impact on London's economy. My noble Friend the Secretary of State and I are considering all options open to the Government to require radical improvements.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will know that not only my constituents, but many, many others have got so frustrated that the number of people petitioning the Government to do something now is growing by the day. Will he assure us that a decision will be taken not on the basis of defending the ideology of sustaining franchises, but in the interests of commuters and other users of the service, and that the users of the service will hear something soon?

Sadiq Khan: The way in which the hon. Gentleman asked the question is important, as is the point that he has made. Hundreds of thousands of commuters have received an appalling service, not for one week or one month, but over a period of three months. We take the matter seriously, and the Secretary of State and I discuss it daily with the train operating company, which includes telephone calls, meetings and letters. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that each day the service is not improved is another day of suffering for passengers, and there is a cost to London as well.

Kelvin Hopkins: Thousands of my constituents travel every day by First Capital Connect, as do I, and we can give a daily account of the failings of that company, which has shown itself to be totally incompetent and interested only in making money, not providing a service. I urge my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to taking the franchise away and bringing it back to the public sector.

Sadiq Khan: All options are on the table. I hear my hon. Friend's representations, as I listen to all representations. The point made in the previous question is important. We must not allow dogma to dictate the quality of service, or lack of it, that passengers receive. My job, and that of the Department and our officials, is to ensure a radical improvement in the quality of service provided by First Capital Connect.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister is right. Dogma should not be part of this discussion. First Capital Connect should rightly be condemned for the poor service that it has provided. However, if dogma is not to be a part of the discussion, I am sure the Minister will want to inform the House that the east coast line has seen punctuality drop from 89 per cent. to 67 per cent. since it was nationalised. If we are concerned about the future of the London economy, can the Minister assure the House that there are no plans to reduce the number of trains running through the core on Thameslink 2?

Sadiq Khan: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to remind the House of the £5.5 billion investment in the Thameslink programme, which is at risk if, God forbid, the Conservative party forms a Government. On policy, it is important that I remind him of the "Conservative rail review: Getting the best for passengers" policy, which is this:
	"The DfT's role should be radically stripped back . . . retaining only a limited involvement"
	with franchises. So the powers that we have would be taken away if the Opposition were to form a Government.

National Concessionary Bus Passes

Mark Harper: If he will bring forward proposals to enable national concessionary bus passes to be used on community transport services; and if he will make a statement.

Sadiq Khan: I pay tribute to and thank the more than 5,000 voluntary bodies which provide community transport around the country, making a substantial positive impact on transport priorities. Some sectors of community transport are already eligible for concessionary travel. Local authorities are also able to offer concessions on any form of community transport on a discretionary basis. We have no current plans to extend the £1 billion national concessionary scheme.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that answer and for the tribute that the Minister has rightly paid to the many community groups that run those essential transport services. The problem in constituencies such as mine, where there are not many scheduled bus services, is that the free bus pass is completely useless for many older and disabled constituents. The district council has to run a costly parallel system of travel tokens, which people who qualify for the pass can use on community transport. Will the Minister consider a proposal for extending the free concessionary bus pass, so that we can get rid of a layer of wasteful bureaucracy and have a more efficient, streamlined system that could deliver better services at no more cost to the taxpayer?

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to look at new ideas. Aside from the cost, there are practical problems with the definition of eligibility, including who would be eligible, and with the impact on rural bus demand, given the extra burdens that such a scheme would impose. I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about any proposals that he has, but it is worth adding that Forest of Dean district council did not respond to the recent consultation on the special grant. However, he may have constructive ideas, which I am happy to listen to, about improving the service that his constituents receive.

Passenger Security (Screening)

Ann Winterton: Whether he plans to add profiling to the passenger security screening measures in place at UK airports.

Paul Clark: Security staff at Heathrow are undergoing training in behavioural analysis techniques, whereby passengers are selected if they are behaving suspiciously. We will review the effectiveness of that trial before deciding whether it can be rolled out more widely.

Ann Winterton: Following the recent alleged attempt to bomb the plane that was destined for Detroit from Amsterdam Schiphol airport, it has been suggested that UK airport security could be stepped up through passenger profiling, which is perhaps what the Minister was talking about. Will it make passengers' journey through security and travel safer? Will it, in fact, be effective?

Paul Clark: All approaches to security have one underlying aim, which is to make sure that those flying to, from and within the United Kingdom are safe and able to go about their business knowing that all agencies and all parts of the industry have taken the necessary steps. Profiling has certain considerable limitations, which is why aviation security is multi-layered. Behavioural analysis techniques mean that one can profile against the norm; therefore people behaving people suspiciously will require further security checks.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend have sufficient power to assure himself that a variety of security measures are deployed to respond to changing intelligence information?

Paul Clark: Yes, I believe that we do. We have an arrangement whereby a range of security and intelligence agencies come together to advise Ministers, agencies and airlines on the operations that they need to undertake.

Angus MacNeil: We all know that there can be large queues at airport security points, but will the Minister explain why passengers, when travelling to Scotland through Heathrow terminal 5, have to get through security 35 minutes before departure, while at London City airport a more sensible approach is taken, with no time limit so long as the passenger can make the flight?

Paul Clark: I shall certainly look into the specifics of that issue, but our role is to set the required security standards; the airport operators need to ensure and manage the necessary processes, including queues.

Phil Wilson: Kromek is an award-winning company in my constituency, and its chief executive officer, Arnab Basu, was awarded the title of entrepreneur of the year. It is developing a scanner that can identify whether liquid in a bottle is explosive, and the product is being trialled in the United States and other areas. Will my hon. Friend meet me and the company to see what we can do to promote that great British invention?

Paul Clark: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) is a strong campaigner for his constituency's industries and, particularly, for Kromek. I assure him that members of my Department, along with the police and the Home Office, have been collaborating closely with Kromek and, indeed, other companies to take forward that work and ensure that our security systems are ahead of the threat that we face. However, I am always more than willing to meet organisations.

Theresa Villiers: I fully appreciate that the extreme sensitivity of this issue puts real constraints on the detail that the Minister can share with the House, but can he help me with the following question? The Israelis have used behavioural analysis for some years to spot suspicious behaviour within a perimeter that stretches out as widely as airport car parks. Does he see any scope for using such techniques in the UK to address risks that arise before the security check stage to guard against attacks of the sort that we saw in Glasgow in 2007, which are targeted on people queuing?

Paul Clark: The hon. Lady is right that it is not possible to go into operational details. As regards the techniques that are available to us, we continue to receive information and consider opportunities through the intelligence agencies as to what is possible. Behavioural analysis techniques are being trialled at Heathrow with the BAA and UK Border Agency staff based there. I saw that for myself earlier this week when I visited Heathrow and discussed it with the operatives. We keep all these opportunities under review.

Theresa Villiers: There is clearly scope for a consensus to emerge on an intelligence-led approach to security, which is welcome. However, the Minister will recall the Prime Minister's 2007 promise to deliver a data system to identify and stop terror suspects before they board a plane to come to the UK. Why have the "authority to carry" provisions that are necessary to deliver that not been put in place, given that countries such as Australia have had those systems for some years? Will the Minister admit that the e-Borders programme is expensive, late, and leaves us behind other countries that have better systems that are already in operation?

Paul Clark: The hon. Lady will be well aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier this month, and of the Prime Minister's statement to this House on 20 January, clearly taking forward the options and rolling out further the e-Borders programme, as well as the watch list and no-fly list, which we are working on. We are in discussion with other countries, and working together where there is a security threat, before these people board flights to the UK or elsewhere.

John Leech: Any additional security requirements at airports are likely to be very expensive for airport operators. What assessment has the Minister made of the financial impact on regional airports, which have already been particularly hit by the recession?

Paul Clark: The requirements for security have always been very clearly known, and meeting the costs involved is a matter for the business that is running the airport. However, we have regular discussions, and we have obviously had substantial discussions since 25 December last year with airport operators to discuss the roll-out and mechanics that are required. The costs are an operating cost that falls against the business of running an airport.

A47

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to hold discussions with the Highways Agency on recent fatalities on the A47.

Paul Clark: I am aware of the recent fatal accident at East Winch, and I extend every sympathy to the families and friends of those killed. As part of the strategic road network, the established procedures are being followed, which involves the Highways Agency undertaking a fatal accident study following any police investigation, which may identify recommendations for safety improvements.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Minister for that reply and for expressing his regrets at what was an horrendous double fatality. What are the prospects for that stretch of road being dualled? Can he ensure that when the Highways Agency sets up its safety audit it looks specifically at reducing the speed limit and installing more fibre optic flashing warning signs?

Paul Clark: Obviously, recommendations may be made arising from the investigation by the police and the Highways Agency. There are no plans to dual that part of the A47, which is, overall, one of the safer stretches of A road in our country, as is indicated by the figures on personal injury in accidents. However, any lessons that can be learned arising from a fatality will of course be taken on board.

Robert Goodwill: Some of the worst accidents on this type of road are head-on collisions, when frustrated motorists attempt to overtake lorries in dangerous locations. The speed limit for large goods vehicles on single carriageway trunk roads is 20 mph slower than that for cars. Would narrowing that gap improve road safety?

Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter is part of the work we have done in the new road safety strategy for 2011 and beyond, particularly in relation to the types of roads referred to by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. We are aware that single carriage, rural A roads account for proportionately more deaths given the volume of traffic on them, which is why we are looking at a range of issues. We are considering the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), but equally, there is a view that such a change would not help and that it would lead to further accidents.

Gatwick Airport (Railway Station)

Laura Moffatt: What recent discussions his Department has had on the redevelopment of the railway station at Gatwick airport.

Chris Mole: Enhancements to Gatwick airport station have been discussed with key beneficiaries at three meetings over the past four months. My hon. Friend was at the most recent meeting last week, where Gatwick Airport Ltd and Network Rail agreed to negotiations that could enable work on the full improvement scheme to start by 2013.

Laura Moffatt: I am grateful for that response. Setting aside the worrying 1,500 job losses proposed by Network Rail, Network Rail will carry out a major upgrade of the track and signalling along the Brighton line. If we miss the opportunity to do the much-needed work at Gatwick airport, it will be a travesty. I know that the Department has been working extremely hard with the stakeholders-Gatwick Airport Ltd, the regional development agency and everybody else-to do that work. Can I squeeze some more out of him? Will he do a little more to make sure we deal with the current shortfall?

Chris Mole: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the exemplary way in which she has engaged with Network Rail, the regional Minister and key stakeholders at Gatwick airport to press for progress. One might argue that she is a model Back Bencher. The full scheme would bring better connectivity and surface access, removal of a platform bottleneck, more reliable journeys on the Brighton main line and inward investment and retention of businesses around Gatwick. It is opportune to remind partners that there is a limited window of opportunity, and that negotiations need to be concluded by the end of March.

High-Speed Rail

Tony Lloyd: What recent progress his Department has made on its plans for high-speed rail; and if he will make a statement.

Sadiq Khan: The Department for Transport is continuing its assessment of the detailed report from High Speed 2, which was received at the end of last year. If the Government decide to pursue proposals for high-speed rail, we will publish a White Paper setting out plans by the end of March 2010.

Tony Lloyd: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, I say that there is enormous enthusiasm for a high-speed rail link across the length and breadth of this country, but can he persuade the traditionally London-centric Departments that this scheme is not about London? It is about connecting together the whole of our nation, which is what makes it exciting and viable.

Sadiq Khan: It is not just a question of Departments; political parties are obsessed with London, forgetting the rest of the country. When some parties form a Government, they want to serve the whole country, not just the privileged few. The benefits of a national high-speed link will not simply be extra rail capacity, faster journey times and positive environmental impact, but economic regeneration and increased employment for those parts of the country that arguably need it the most.

David Evennett: I welcome the Government's conversion to the benefits of high-speed rail for the whole country, but will the Minister now listen to sense and, on environmental grounds, abandon his plans to build a third runway at Heathrow?

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for the question, because it gives me a chance to explain to the House the inconsistency of Conservative policy. The Mayor of London wants an estuary airport on the Thames. The Bow Group and Lord Heseltine say that there is a false choice-

Hon. Members: Order, order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not require any help from people chuntering from a sedentary position, so they are wasting their voices. I say to the Minister of State that he will want to focus his reply on Government policy and not on that of the Opposition.

Sadiq Khan: Government policy was articulated last January-I know that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was here then-when we made clear our support for a third runway as long as the relevant planning processes are gone through. Last week's report from the Conservative think tank and Lord Heseltine confirms that a choice between the third runway and high-speed rail is a false choice. We want intelligent debate based on evidence, not playing to the gallery.

Stephen Hepburn: Does the Minister agree that the best way of boosting the north-east economy and ending the north-south divide is by pressing ahead with the high-speed rail link to Newcastle? Will he put his full support behind the proposal?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely right. My hon. Friend reminds me that the benefits will be not simply to London but to the north-west, the north-east, the east midlands, Yorkshire and Scotland. We are a party that believes in governing for the whole country and not just for our chums in London.

Mark Hunter: When we finally get high-speed rail, to which all parties are apparently now committed, there is increasing speculation that one way in which the train operators will seek to minimise journey times is by reducing the number of stops. Stockport station, on the west coast main line, which serves not only my constituency but the wider Stockport area and south Manchester, is a hugely important strategic stop. Can the Minister guarantee that when we finally get the high-speed rail link on the west coast main line, it will continue to stop at Stockport?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We also need some high-speed questions.

Sadiq Khan: I shall try to give a high-speed answer.
	The challenge that the hon. Gentleman raises is one of those that David Rowlands and High Speed 2 had to look into. When we produce our White Paper, we will hopefully deal with some of the challenges and the balances that need to be made between stopping at more stations and the disbenefit of slowing down the trains. He makes an important point, which David Rowlands looked into.

Station Reopening (London)

Martin Linton: If he will discuss with the Mayor of London the merits of reopening (a) Battersea High Street station and (b) other closed railway stations in London.

Chris Mole: If the Mayor puts forward any such proposals for discussion, I will be happy to meet him. It is for Network Rail, the relevant train operator and Transport for London to consider the best way of meeting an identified transport need in that particular part of London.

Martin Linton: If only the Department for Transport were London-centric, I would certainly be very pleased; I have not noticed it so far.
	Is my hon. Friend aware of the demand in Battersea for the reopening of Battersea station, or at the very least for a footbridge to the newly opened Imperial Wharf station? Battersea station was closed only because of an air raid during the war. It was one of 33 London stations that were closed during wars and never reopened, including Walworth, Camberwell, Wormwood Scrubs and others.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we must have a question, not an essay. We have got the thrust of it, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Chris Mole: My hon. Friend articulates the case very well for his constituents, and I understand his point about new stations in areas of development and regeneration. We give the Mayor about £3 billion a year to sustain and develop transport networks in London, and I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the Mayor and local councils to promote the reopening of the station.

Potholes (Highways Agency)

Philip Dunne: What recent estimate he has made of the number of potholes and other road surface defects requiring repair on roads maintained by the Highways Agency.

Chris Mole: The Highways Agency has a comprehensive road resurfacing programme to reduce the potential for potholes and other surface defects. However, the severity of the recent weather has led to an increase in those defects. There is no value in the agency counting potholes, as it has a robust regime for identifying them and allocating the resources necessary for undertaking repairs. That is sufficient to keep England's motorways and trunk roads in a serviceable and safe condition.

Philip Dunne: The Minister has obviously not read the report produced last year, before the recent weather that has further damaged the road network, by the Asphalt Industry Alliance, which reported that there is a 13-year backlog of maintenance on our road network. The Government have had 13 years, and not only did they fail to fix the roof when the sun was shining-

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question?

Philip Dunne: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
	Not only did this Government fail to fix the roof when the sun was shining, but they failed to fix the roads. What are they going to do now that the roads are in a much worse condition than they were when that report was issued?

Chris Mole: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Highways Agency, and I have given him an appropriate answer about the strategic road network. If he is widening his question to include local roads, those are of course matters for local authorities, many of which may well be Conservative-controlled.

Transport Network (Cold Weather)

Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's response to the effects of recent cold weather conditions on the transport network.

Sadiq Khan: The country recently experienced the most prolonged severe winter conditions for nearly 30 years. The Government's actions, working with local government and others, stabilised and minimised the disruption to transport systems. We are continuing the work to ensure that those systems are able to respond to further challenges.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that somewhat brief reply. Is he aware, as another junior Transport Minister clearly is, that some 17,000 trains were suspended in England and Wales during the snowy weather up to 9 January? Why were 17,000 trains suspended in that period? What are the Government and Network Rail doing to reduce that number for future occasions of inclement weather?

Sadiq Khan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that when he was in the House 30 years ago, the trains all ran on time and snow did not cause delay or cancellation-when they were nationalised. North Europe, America, Canada and other parts of the world experienced severe weather, and they also had problems with their transport systems. All major road networks were open in this country and I think that we did pretty well. We showed a generosity of spirit and a get-up-and-go attitude, which led to most of the country coping pretty well.

Clive Efford: Southeastern Trains stopped running trains in the cold spell at 9 o'clock in the evening, yet the docklands light railway and London Underground continued their services throughout the day, almost without disruption. Why did Southeastern Trains stop running trains? If my right hon. Friend does not know, will he haul the company in and get it to explain why it completely disrupted the service?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We did haul in Southeastern Trains, and we told the company that what happened was unacceptable. That demonstrates that we are a Department that believes in engaging with the private sector, not allowing it to get away with anything it wants to do. Southeastern Trains has learned the lessons and will ensure in future that the service is better. We know from last year that further bad weather is possible in February. We will see whether the lessons have been learned from our hauling in.

Topical Questions

Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on his Departmental responsibilities.

Sadiq Khan: Since our previous Question Time in December, my Department has announced a £200 million electrification programme for key railway lines in the north-west, responded swiftly and effectively to the recent severe weather and aviation security threats, and invested £20 million in bringing integrated smart ticketing to our cities in five years. We have now received the High Speed 2 report, and are working intensively on the Government's response.

Simon Hughes: Given that since 1997, the real cost of travelling by motoring and air has gone down, while the real cost of travelling by rail has gone up, will Ministers make a commitment that, if re-elected, the formula for regulating rail fares will change so that the real cost of travelling by train will decrease, not increase?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Some train operating companies have used the regulations in which we prescribed regulated fares to introduce much more expensive fare regimes for the rest of the day. We are learning the lessons of that, and ensuring that when a new franchise is awarded, a basket of improvements benefits the commuter rather than any train operating company.

Jessica Morden: Will the Minister give me an update for long-suffering Severn bridge users on progress on resolving issues, including using debit and credit cards and considering a freeze on the annual tolling increases?

Sadiq Khan: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that, as a direct consequence of her campaign, lobbying and giving me a hard time outside as well as inside the Chamber, work is under way to make the necessary amendments to the secondary legislation to allow card payments to be accepted on the Severn crossing. The Department for Transport legal and policy people are currently making progress on the changes to the regulations and it is anticipated that the amendments will be made, and that the instrument will come into force in April.

Simon Burns: Given that we are having the second winter of excessive harsh weather, which is causing serious problems with potholes on our roads, does the Minister accept that local authorities and the Highways Agency must do more to ensure that the repairs are done as quickly as possible? Will he join me in welcoming Essex county council's decision to double the budget for this year to deal with those problems?

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for that question and the way in which it was asked. We have tripled the amount we give to local authorities to maintain their roads. Last year, we announced an additional £32 million to allow local authorities to assess their roads. If local authorities maintain their roads regularly, there is less chance of potholes forming. Of course, we consider sympathetically applications for additional funding. We are talking to 10 local authorities from last year, and will consider applications made this year, too.

Ken Purchase: The Minister will be aware that a railway workers' lobby was here yesterday. The thrust of one of their complaints was that accountants are instructing engineers on what to do. The workers fear that that will result in serious safety failures. What can he say to the House in response to that? Can he assure us that the de-manning of the maintenance service will not impede safety on the railways?

Chris Mole: The Office of Rail Regulation, which is both the economic and safety regulator for the railways, has challenged Network Rail to reduce its costs, and improve its efficiency and effectiveness, by around a third over the next control period. The challenge to Network Rail is to ensure that it does that without impacting on either the performance or the safety of the railway. The ORR is inspecting and ensuring that safety is maintained, and any concerns that employees or others have should be referred directly to it.

John Baron: Government figures show that foreign left-hand drive heavy goods vehicles account for three times the number of accidents that our own right-hand drive HGVs account for. Given that I have raised this issue with the Government over the last few years, and suggested a solution-the mandatory issuance of Fresnel mirrors that would eliminate the blind spot-what progress have they made in reducing that accident rate? Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue?

Paul Clark: Let me at the outset say that I am more than happy to meet hon. Members to discuss road safety issues. The additional resources that we have given to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to undertake checks and issue Fresnel mirrors has had a significant effect on the number of accidents. As I said, I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter.

Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend assure me of the Government's commitment to high-speed rail electrification from London to south Wales?

Sadiq Khan: I can confirm that we are committed to that. As I said, we believe in serving the entire country, which includes electrifying the Great Western line from London all the way to Swansea-that was a £1 billion announcement. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that currently in Europe, only two countries have less than one mile of electrified line-Albania and Wales. That needs to be sorted out.

Greg Mulholland: Has the Minister made an assessment of the costs nationally to the damage to roads as a result of the cold weather? Will he conduct a review into the use of salt, as opposed to grit, which is used by some other countries, because of the damage that it does to road surfaces?

Sadiq Khan: That is one of the things the UK Roads Liaison Group gives advice on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, although he may have missed what I said earlier, that we have trebled the amount of funding we give to local authorities in relation to roads maintenance. We have also announced an additional package of £32 million to assess the roads, which will include dealing with the point he made. If he has problems with local authority funding, I am happy for him to approach both the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, which give additional money in exceptional circumstances.

Ann Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a conflict of interest could be residing within the Office of Rail Regulation, because it is responsible for both safety and investment?

Chris Mole: I am more than content that the ORR understands how it needs to discharge both those responsibilities at the same time without any conflict of interest.

Ann Winterton: Rail passengers travel at peak times in overcrowded carriages in conditions in which it would be illegal to transport cattle and sheep. When is that lack of capacity to be tackled? When will adequate rolling stock be delivered for the safety and comfort of the travelling public?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Lady raises a point that has been raised before. We have announced plans to increase our rolling stock by 2014 and we are ahead of the curve in relation to delivery from 2008. It is a question of choices. Had we taken the advice to increase our spending this year by only 1 per cent., it would have led to a reduction of £840 million. If we take the advice to reduce our spending next year by 25 per cent., any idea of increased capacity is pie in the sky.

Clive Efford: On several occasions before Christmas, the road network in south-east London and east London came to a complete gridlock because of incidents in the Blackwall tunnel or on adjacent roads. That unacceptable situation occurs too frequently. When my right hon. Friend next meets the Mayor of London, will he put that high on his agenda, because it cannot be allowed to continue?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure what the Mayor's priorities are, but they are not the Croydon Tramlink or the Dartford crossing. In fact, he seems obsessed with interfering with Conservative leadership issues. I will ensure that we try to impress on the Mayor the priority of serving Londoners and addressing some of the challenges they face, rather than increasing fares on buses, tubes and trams.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware of the statement by the AA that the money to fix all Britain's potholes could be raised within 100 days if increased profits from VAT on fuel were diverted to that problem? Will the Government act accordingly to fill in and repair the potholes?

Sadiq Khan: I am always happy to tell local authorities what to do, but I actually believe in devolution and giving local authorities the power to do as they see fit. I am only disappointed that so many of them are Conservative and decide not to invest in maintaining our roads. They invest in various projects rather than serving the community that they were elected to serve.

Patrick Cormack: In view of the fact that using our airports is becoming increasingly frustrating, uncomfortable and disagreeable because of necessary security measures, will the Minister convene a meeting of all airport operators to see what can be done to address the issue of passenger comfort?

Paul Clark: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we have regular meetings with the airport operators to discuss exactly those issues. I wish to put on record our thanks to all those who have worked on the new measures that have come into force since 25 December, and to the travelling public for their patience when experiencing delays immediately after the new requirements were introduced. Most people recognise the proportionality of the security arrangements, but we keep them under review.

Philip Hollobone: To be more cost-effective, Kettering borough council, of which I am a member, would like to employ one set of street wardens for parking enforcement and to tackle litter and dog-fouling offences. Two lines of guidance from the Department are preventing the council from doing that. Will the Minister look at that situation?

Sadiq Khan: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall be happy to look into it.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Minister for his answers to the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about First Capital Connect. May I ask him a further question on that issue? How much longer will it take for the Secretary of State to reach a judgment on whether that company is up to the job of delivering its franchise agreement?

Sadiq Khan: I do not apologise for being tough when it comes to those who run our trains, if there are financial concerns or the companies are in breach of the agreements, either through enforcing remedial action or financial penalties. Over the last three months, First Capital Connect's performance has been unacceptable-I would go so far as to say it has been disgraceful. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the quality of service improves for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Some people are advising us that we should not micro-manage train operating companies and should let them have more flexible and longer franchises. We have declined that advice, and we take a hands-on approach to ensure that commuters receive the best quality service.

WOMEN AND EQUALITY

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked-

Employees with Families

Jessica Morden: If she will discuss with trade union representatives the guidance provided to employers on rights for employees with families.

Maria Eagle: The Government are committed to building a fair and family-friendly labour market, and my ministerial colleagues and I meet regularly with both unions and representatives of business to discuss this aim and how to advance it. Today's announcement that fathers will be able to take up to six months off on paternity leave by replacing the mother at home for some of her maternity leave is a further advance for the flexibility agenda.

Jessica Morden: The unions are doing a great job in promoting the right to work flexibly, but many parents remain unaware of their rights or are wary of asking for them. What more can the Department do, working with the trade unions, to make people feel more able to ask for more family-friendly hours and to increase the uptake of that right?

Maria Eagle: There is a range of things that we can do. Equality reps, which many trade unions have in workplaces, can help to provide better information and signpost individuals and companies to it. The section of the businesslink.gov website on employing people has 350,000 hits a month from employers seeking information on how to provide better flexibility. The evidence is that many people ask for flexible working and 95 per cent. of requests are positively met.

Jo Swinson: Many businesses find that operating a flexible working policy brings huge productivity gains, as well as being good for those with families, although some remain either unconvinced or unsure of how to go about it. What can the Government do to promote the business benefits of flexible working too, and encourage more organisations to take it up, whether by creating part-time roles at senior levels or pursuing such policies as job sharing?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Lady is right. We do a range of such work. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently announced that we would bring together employers, business representatives and the TUC to look at how to improve family-friendly working practices further. That type of pragmatic three-way discussion does just that: it is successful, and it is good news for employees and employers. In other words, it is a typical, good Labour policy.

Fiona Mactaggart: Employees at O2 in my constituency presented me with a petition last week about child care vouchers. It was initiated because the child care voucher companies had left them unaware that the Government had changed their planned policy for tax breaks for child care vouchers. Will the Minister please talk to the child care voucher providers to ensure that they work with the companies that use such vouchers and inform employees of that positive policy?

Maria Eagle: I am happy to take up the point that my hon. Friend has made and talk to the relevant organisations.

Equality Bill (Religious Groups)

Andrew Rosindell: What recent discussions she has had with religious groups on the provisions of the Equality Bill.

Harriet Harman: Ministers in this House-in particular my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office-and Ministers in the Lords have had a number of discussions with religious and belief groups and have received a number of representations relating to religion or belief since the introduction of the Equality Bill. Such discussions and representations are ongoing.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister finally admit that were it not for the successful amendment from Baroness O'Cathain in the House of Lords earlier this week, the Equality Bill as unamended would have further restricted employment for people working in religious organisations?

Harriet Harman: No, it would not. We thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved to clarify the law, and that is what the amendment that we brought forward aimed to do. That amendment was rejected. However, it would be helpful for the House to understand that there are religious jobs and non-religious jobs within organisations. For example, I would say that a pensions assistant ensuring that the records database is kept up to date was not doing a religious job. I would also say that issuing and processing invoices, even if it is done in the employment of the Church of England, is not a religious job.
	To make it clear, the law applies to religious organisations when they employ people in non-religious jobs in the same way that it does to everyone else. We have always been clear that we are not going to insist on non-discrimination in relation to religious jobs such as being a vicar, a bishop, an imam or a rabbi. The law has stepped back from that and said that religious organisations can decide themselves how to do that. However, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law, and that is how the law remains.

Mark Harper: The Minister will know that before the Government's defeat, her Bill as unamended did not even make it clear that ministers of religion would have to live in accordance with the faith of their religion. Following the Government's defeat in the other place not once but three times, by a coalition led by Conservative peers, bishops and Cross Benchers, the Bill has been improved. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will accept the decision in the other place to enable Churches to insist that key posts be held by those who live in accordance with the tenets of their faith, or will she seek to reverse that defeat in this House?

Harriet Harman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to perpetrate a further misunderstanding. We are absolutely clear that we have never intended to extend the non-discrimination provisions to ministers of religion, nor have we ever tried to do so. Therefore they are exempted. We have always made it absolutely clear that they are and will continue to be exempted from the non-discrimination laws, and we have not sought to change that. There has been an issue about what is or is not a religious job, and we sought to clarify that. Our helpful clarification was not regarded as helpful in the House of Lords, and therefore the amendment was defeated. We will consider how to respond to that, but an official announcement will be made in due course, once these things have gone through the machinery, as it were. However, I would reassure hon. Members that the policy will remain as it is, and I would not want to lead them to anticipate that it will be brought forward again in this House.

Equality Bill (Access to Information)

Anne Begg: If she will bring forward amendments to the Equality Bill to provide equality of access to information for blind and partially-sighted people.

Maria Eagle: Undertakings have been given in the other place to consider tabling amendments on Report. However, the existing disability discrimination legislation provides that accessible information for visually impaired people and others is a reasonable adjustment, and the disability equality duty requires public authorities not to discriminate against disabled people on the grounds of their disability. Providing accessible information for disabled people might be required to meet that obligation in appropriate circumstances.

Anne Begg: The problem is that organisations such as the Royal National Institute for Blind People feel that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to which the Minister referred are unenforceable because access to information is classed as an auxiliary aid and service. I hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably on the suggestion that the Equality Bill needs a separate clause to make these provisions absolutely clear. Will she also confirm that trying to solve this problem by means of a judicial review would not be the way forward?

Maria Eagle: The requirements of the current Disability Discrimination Act are enforceable, and they can be enforced in appropriate circumstances. However, we want public authorities to take a leading role and to lead by example in providing accessible information to those with visual impairments and others. In that respect, I hope that the House authorities themselves will consider whether refusing to allow a visually impaired parliamentarian a Braille copy of a Bill is really helping that parliamentarian to do his job. Should we not be leading by example in this respect? I believe that we should be, and I hope that the House authorities will reconsider that decision. [Official Report, 3 February 2010, Vol. 505, c. 3MC.]

Equality Bill (Age Discrimination)

John Howell: When she plans to publish the draft regulations on age discrimination as provided for in the Equality Bill.

Vera Baird: We aim to consult in the autumn on a draft order under the Equality Bill, which will specify the exceptions to the otherwise full ban on age discrimination against adults in services and public functions.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for that response, and I am pleased to see that the Government have accepted the concerns of those of us who served on the Bill Committee about the need to retain good age discrimination. Can she confirm that the exemption for companies such as Saga will be in the regulations, and not just in the guidelines?

Vera Baird: Yes, I can, and I am sorry that I could not do so earlier when I was asked to make that clear on Report. There will be a number of specific exceptions. There has been a very good consultation process on this. We had 106 responses from businesses, the age lobby and local authorities-indeed, everyone we could have wished to feed in did so. There will certainly be specific exemptions for financial services, and for age-related group holidays, which are obviously advantageous.

David Winnick: Does my young ministerial colleague not agree that it is totally unacceptable that anyone should be discriminated against because of their age, and that there is no justification for forcing someone out of work when they reach 65 if they want to continue in employment? If it is good enough for us, it should be good enough for the people outside the House.

Vera Baird: I volunteer to be the young Minister who responds to my equally youthful colleague's question. Obviously, we are looking as closely as we practically can, and as quickly as we can, at the question of the future of the default retirement age, which frankly seems unpromising. It is probably older than both my hon. Friend and me, and past its sell-by date.

Lynne Featherstone: Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and given that the Equality Commission now agrees that a mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and should be outlawed, I should like to inform the Minister that there is an opportunity in the Lords at the moment to table an amendment on this matter. Will the Government table such an amendment to end the mandatory retirement age?

Vera Baird: It is prudent, when something has been a fact in a given piece of law in our system for a very long time, not simply to click one's fingers and remove it, but to consult and to find out what any unintended consequences might be, so that it can be done-if it is to be done-in a sensible way, after all the input has been considered. We have recently mentioned a date by which we expect to complete that process, and I hope that the hon. Lady will curb her impatience at least until then.

Gordon Banks: I have seen as an employer, and personally as the years roll on, the value of experience. I hope that the good voters of Ochil and South Perthshire see that too. Does the Minister agree that valuable experience will be a building brick to get the economy growing as we move out of recession, and that it should be seen as a significant asset?

Vera Baird: Yes, I do-I am equally prepared to volunteer to be an experienced Minister. A number of employers are now seeing the benefits of having older people working for them, which is marked in places such as B&Q. They see enormous benefits in terms of good customer relations and general wisdom. I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent.

Andrew Selous: Is the Minister aware that a golf club in my constituency proposes to stop offering reduced membership to its pensioner members, on the basis of its understanding of the Equality Bill? Has it got it right?

Vera Baird: No, it has not. I can write to the hon. Gentleman to set out, step by step, how it has got it wrong. But take it from me-it has got it wrong.

Government Equalities Office

Tony Lloyd: What information the Government Equalities Office collates on the gender pay gap for (a) full-time and (b) part-time workers.

Vera Baird: The Government Equalities Office uses data collected by the Office for National Statistics in the annual survey of hours and earnings to monitor the gender pay gap. In 2009, women working full time were paid 12.2 per cent. less than full-time men; women working part time were paid 2 per cent. more than part-time men. Comparing all women-full and part time-with all men, the pay gap is currently 22 per cent.

Tony Lloyd: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. In recent times, one disappointing thing has been the growing pay gap in the private sector. That is possibly a result of the financial restraints currently operating there, but it is still unacceptable. Will the Equality Bill have a material impact on that pay gap in the private sector? Is there any evidence that other parties will offer their support for that step forward?

Vera Baird: Overall, during our period in office, the pay gap has reduced from 27.5 to 22 per cent. We are passing pleased about that, although the Equality Bill is intended to jump that process up a lot of gears. Our proposals have not had wholehearted support from the Opposition, to put it bluntly. The proposals hinge on the need to make pay structures in business transparent, so that we can compare business with business, sector with sector, like with like, and see where the imbalances are. Only when such imbalances are visible can they be pushed out. The short answer is that we were not supported in that admirable endeavour by Her Majesty's Opposition.

Philip Davies: Is it not ludicrous that the Government give tens of millions of pounds to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to lecture the rest of the country about the gender pay gap, yet the Equality and Human Rights Commission itself pays women more than men?

Vera Baird: I am groping hard for the logic behind that question-was "ludicrous" the word the hon. Gentleman used. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has had a lot of input into making the right measurements available so that the hon. Gentleman, as well as I, can know what the pay gap is, so that he can join forces with me to ensure that women are given equal pay in the very near future.

Hugh Bayley: Let us get real about low-paid women workers. The national minimum wage has increased the earnings of many more women than men. Will the Government Equalities Office keep a close eye on the impact of a minimum wage on the gender pay gap for low-paid workers, and make representations to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to use the minimum wage as a key driver for equality?

Vera Baird: Of course the minimum wage has had an enormously advantageous impact on low-paid women, despite the best endeavours of the Tories to stop it getting on to the statute book. It will continue to have a good effect, as will a number of other proposals that we have. Perhaps the most telling fact is that the Tories will oppose all the steps we take to advance equal pay, even though it is clearly known that the most important single measure to get children out of poverty is to give women equal pay. That does not affect the Tories, but they still oppose it.

Business of the House

George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us next week's business?

Harriet Harman: The provisional business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 1 February-Motion to approve the seventh report 2009-2010 from the Standards and Privileges Committee (HC 310); followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; followed by motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; followed by Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 5).
	Tuesday 2 February-Remaining stages of the Flood and Water Management Bill.
	Wednesday 3 February-Motions relating to police grant, local government finance and council tax.
	Thursday 4 February-Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Crime and Security Bill; followed by remaining stages of the Corporation Tax Bill; followed by remaining stages of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Bill.
	Friday 5 February-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 8 February will include:
	Monday 8 February-Opposition day [4(th) allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 25 February and 4 March will be:
	Thursday 25 February-A debate from the Transport Committee entitled "Rail Fares and Franchises"
	Thursday 4 March-A debate from the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled "Global Security: Non-Proliferation".

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business but she has not actually been very forthcoming. We already knew the business for next week and she has only given us the business for one day on the following week. Can she share with the House her plans for the week after next?
	Will there be a statement next week on today's conference on Afghanistan? While I am on international matters, may I ask once again for an opportunity to debate Haiti? Last week the right hon. and learned Lady said that she would look for an opportunity "in some form or another, for Haiti to be debated on the Floor of the House next week".-[ Official Report, 21 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 449.]
	Given the huge international effort that will be needed to rebuild that country and the problems of rehousing millions of people who have been left homeless, surely this is an issue for which we should find time in this House.
	We are due to debate the Wright report on 23 February. Despite the Prime Minister's warm words at Prime Minister's questions last week, there is now widespread suspicion that the Government have adopted an approach that is simply designed to fail. Today's edition of  The Times reports that we will be voting only on an unamendable order, which could be blocked by a single Member. Is that consistent with the spirit of consensus to which the right hon. and learned Lady has constantly referred? The last time a similar package of reforms was debated in the House, in 2002, we had a debate and then we voted on a series of resolutions on the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. Why is that not an appropriate precedent for the Wright Committee? Will the House be able to vote on the resolutions of which the Government approve as well as on those that they do not? Does the Leader of the House agree with my suggestion that we should postpone the February recess by one day and debate the Wright report earlier than she proposes, given that we are seriously beginning to run out of time? Yesterday she admitted that she was not much good at reversing. Today she risks stalling.
	May we have a statement on the release of material to the Chilcot inquiry? When he announced the inquiry, the Prime Minister unequivocally said that
	"no British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry."
	Yesterday, Sir John expressed his frustration that key documents relating to the legality of the Iraq war had failed to be declassified. Has the Prime Minister now backtracked on that commitment?
	May we adopt the Chinese menu approach to Business questions? When I say "No. 41", that means I am looking for the date of the Budget; when I say "42", I am looking for the date of the Easter recess. Last week, the right hon. and learned Lady very helpfully pointed us in the direction of Easter. We are getting warmer, but may I repeat that I am asking this question on behalf of people who work in the House and who can take leave and holidays only when the House is not sitting? Can she provide us with another clue today?
	May we have a debate on how Britain is governed? Two reports in as many weeks from senior civil servants who have worked under Labour paint a picture of a dysfunctional Government, with a "strategic gap" at the heart of Downing street that allows Ministers a free rein to produce endless reams of unnecessary and bad legislation.
	On behalf of Conservative Members, may I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for one thing and offer her our full support? According to a survey this week from the National Centre for Social Research,
	"New Labour has helped ensure that British public opinion now has a more conservative character."

Harriet Harman: I am sorry that I unable to announce any business after Monday for the week after next-the reason is as follows. The Supreme Court has made a decision about the freezing of assets of those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. As hon. Members will know, it is very important that we stop money flowing into organisations that will then use it for terrorist activities. Freezing assets is an important part of the armoury to tackle terrorist activity. The Supreme Court has given a judgment that the methods of freezing are outwith the law. We therefore need to address that issue, because we are absolutely determined that we should be able to freeze assets, but we must do so in a way that is compliant with the substantive law. We have applied to the Court for a stay of implementation of the release of those frozen assets to allow us to consider whether or not we can bring forward legislation before those assets are unfrozen so that we can put the law in order, but prevent the release of assets to those whom we think should not have them.
	I am sorry that I did not have a chance, because these things are ongoing at the moment, to give that explanation to colleagues. A decision will be made at 12 o'clock in the Supreme Court to say whether it will give a stay of implementation of its judgment such that will allow us to legislate. I did not want to announce the business for the week after next given that it may be subject to decisions relating to information that we will not have until after 12 o'clock.
	On Afghanistan, we had a debate led by the Foreign Secretary and closed by the Secretary of State for Defence last week. Obviously, the very important conference is taking place today and I know that the House will want to be updated. Similarly, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for referring to Haiti, which remains an important issue. We will look for opportunities to ensure that the House can be updated, not only about the work that the Government are doing-the doubling of the aid that has gone to Haiti-but about the £50 million that the public has donated and the very important work that our search and rescue teams are doing. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's request about Haiti, which I know is shared by many hon. Members, and I shall do what I can about it.
	On the Wright report, the right hon. Gentleman has talked about "widespread suspicion". It is fair enough for people to be suspicious if there is something to be suspicious of, but he should not be suspicious because we are trying to be very straightforward about this. The Government have been very positive about reforming and improving how the House of Commons works, and we have a clear record of bringing to the House of Commons reforms that have then been accepted by it. We are keen to continue that reform by taking forward the recommendations in the Wright Committee report. The Government's preference for reaching decisions on these reforms is that we proceed on the basis of consensus, and proceed as quickly as possible. We would like to recommend to the House no fewer than 21 of the Wright Committee's recommendations. We thought it would help the House to have a full day's debate-as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have given a provisional date of 23 February for that-at the end of which we will place all 21 before the House under the Remaining Orders of the Day. I hope that some of them will go through without objection, as I know that there will be consensus in the House. That will probably not be the case for all of them, but let us hope that it will be for as many as possible. If there are objections, we are committed to bringing back to the House those motions that have been objected to. Resolutions will then be tabled that can be amended. At the point at which they are amendable, any recommendation from the Wright Committee's report can thereby be attached.
	It is important for people to understand that there is no consensus on some aspects of the recommendations. The Liaison Committee issued a report yesterday about the election of Chairs of Select Committees, and we are in favour of the Wright Committee's proposals on that-we want the House to be able to elect those Chairs by secret ballot-but the Liaison Committee was split down the middle. It agreed to support the Wright Committee's proposals, but only by seven votes to six votes. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to convey the view that there is consensus and that we are trying to oppose it, that is wrong. There are different views and we are trying to get consensus- [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have had to go on so long about that. I hope that people will understand that we are being completely open about this and are trying to make progress.
	On the question of the material for the Chilcot inquiry, the Government will obviously do everything by the rules as laid down. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about the machinery of Government, we had Cabinet Office questions yesterday and I suggest that he should have put that question to Cabinet Office Ministers.

David Heath: On the Wright Committee, I do not think that suspicions have been entirely allayed. The Leader of the House might help the process, given that she appears to be seeking unanimity rather than consensus, if she said that if any of the motions were objected to, the matter would be brought back to the House the following week for a decision. I think that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the issue. Will she give that commitment?
	The right hon. and learned Lady mentioned Cabinet Office questions. May I ask for a debate arising from Cabinet Office questions yesterday on the subject of the Government Communication Network? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked, among other things, why 225 people were employed as communications officers in a single Department. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office said that in a typical Department 600 calls a day were made to the communications officers, so, according to my calculations, that is fewer than three a day to those individuals. I am sure that they do a lot of other work, too, but that does not seem to be an over-taxing burden. Perhaps we should have a debate on that.
	We have heard a lot of talk from the Prime Minister and others about a decision on a referendum on alternative voting systems. However, I have searched the amendment papers for the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and no amendment seems to have been tabled. I assume from that-of course, the Prime Minister would not indulge in idle talk-that a discrete Bill must be coming forward to implement that. Will she confirm that that will be the case? Perhaps it will be discussed in the week for which she has not yet given all the business.
	We read, surprisingly, this week that Pas-de-Calais wishes to be considered part of London and the south-east for the purposes of the 2012 Olympics. This is a novelty that I do not think we have seen since the days of Mary Tudor. Lots of parts of this country would like to be considered part of London and the south-east for the purposes of the 2012 Olympics, so may we have a debate on the Olympics legacy? Two thirds of the Olympic contracts are going to London and the south-east, sports participation figures show hardly any rise-and, indeed, they record a reduction in women's participation- and tourism benefits will be affected by cuts to the VisitBritain budget. May we have a debate on the Olympics legacy?
	May we have a debate on the impending clearance of the radio spectrum and its effect on radio microphones? This is crucial to a lot of theatres and music performance venues around the country that will have to replace expensive equipment wholesale. For some, the cost will be prohibitive and I think that we could usefully have a debate on that.
	Lastly, after what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, I guess that I just have to say, "41, with no black bean sauce." I simply want to know when the Budget is. The Leader of the House did not answer me last week, or the right hon. Gentleman this week. Please, let us have an answer.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked me for an undertaking to bring back to the House the following week those motions that are objected to. I cannot give an undertaking for the following week, but obviously we will want to bring them back as soon as possible. The view that the Government will advance to the House is that we will have a full debate on all the matters arising from the Wright report, but that we should not have to have that debate all over again if motions are objected to and have to be brought back. However, that argument would be undermined if too much time were to pass before we come back to consider the motions that are not agreed. I therefore hope that colleagues will recognise that the chance for the substantive debate on matters that the House might wish to amend will arise before we get to Remaining Orders of the Day.
	I am sorry if that is not terribly clear, but I hope that the House will not be suspicious. It is quite complicated, and we should recognise that there are disagreements on this matter. We take the view that we want to make as much progress as possible on reform.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about the Government Communication Network. The job of people working in Government Departments on communication and information goes beyond just picking up the phone and answering calls, as they also have the very important task of providing information. Their job is about making Government transparent and accountable to the public, so they have to look up and give out the information that people ask for. The Liberal Democrats regard themselves as supporters of openness, transparency and freedom of information, so I am sure that they will agree that someone has to provide that information. That is an important part of Government accountability.
	As for the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, all the issues to be discussed in Monday's debate are already on the Order Paper. An extra day would be needed if any further substantive matters were brought forward.
	On the Olympics, I strongly support the motivation behind the question from the hon. Gentleman. We want to make sure that the money spent secures a legacy after the Olympics, and that that legacy is not just for London but for all the UK. No doubt he can put that point to my right hon. Friend the Olympics Minister and get the information that he requires.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the radio spectrum. I shall look into whether there should be a topical debate on the matter. [Hon. Members: "And the Budget?"] As far as the date for the Budget is concerned, we are still a little way away from arranging it.  [Laughter.] It is not next week. My job is to announce the business for next week and the week after so that the House can know what is happening, and the answer is that the Budget will not be held in either.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. No fewer than 31 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to have any chance of accommodating everyone, brief questions and answers are required.

Stephen Hepburn: Will the Leader of the House give us an early debate on pleural plaques? We need to be able to lay down a marker on any Government proposal that might allow future victims of pleural plaques in Scotland to be compensated by the British taxpayer, when future English victims will get nothing at all.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We are aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, and are firmly committed to ensuring that people suffering from asbestos-related diseases receive the help and support that they need. We hope to be in a position to give the Government's response on pleural plaques soon.

Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House has said that the Youth Parliament sitting that was held here in the Chamber was a great success, so what requests has she had from other organisations? Would it be possible to have a pensioners' Parliament? If so, what would the procedure be? Would any such proposal be debated in the House, and who would take the decision about other such occasions?

Harriet Harman: The Deputy Leader of the House has written to the hon. Lady and, like her, I strongly support the suggestion. I believe that, as happens in Scotland, many other organisations and not just those representing the elderly could use the Chamber when we are not sitting. It would bring people into the House of Commons and would be all to the good.

Tony McNulty: May we have a debate on London government? We were promised three rape crisis centres, but none has been delivered. We were promised low fares, and some are going up by more than 20 per cent. We were promised more police, and the latest proposal is to cut police numbers in London by up to 500. This man cannot even be bothered to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority but still takes £250,000 from  The Daily Telegraph . Is not it the case that London has stopped laughing at this clown?

Harriet Harman: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We get precious little support from the Mayor of London, whether it be on housing and transport for Londoners, the important local responsibility to provide help and support for rape victims or our initiative to get neighbourhood police in every area. However, the Government will do everything that we can to support Londoners.

Greg Knight: Is the Leader of the House aware that next week is salt awareness week? If we cannot have debate on that, will she tell the House what recent representations Ministers have made to the food industry about the desirability of reducing salt levels in its products? Does she agree that this country would be a far better place if we had less salt in our food and more on our roads?

Harriet Harman: I totally agree. I think that salt awareness is very important indeed. We want to make sure that there is less fat, sugar and salt in our food. This is an important public health issue, and something on which the Government and the health authorities need to take action. That is not the nanny state, just good public health policy.

Gisela Stuart: May we have an early debate on how different local education authorities are implementing the Building Schools for the Future programme? I am particularly concerned about the way that Birmingham city council and Catalyst are imposing charges on the use of schools outside core school hours. Other LEAs seem to be able to charge much lower rates, thereby allowing communities to continue to be able to use school buildings.

Harriet Harman: This is a very contentious issue, and justifiably so. Public money has gone into state-of-the-art school buildings that are very important for pupils but which also should be available for the wider community. I shall raise the matter with Ministers in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and ask them to liaise directly with my hon. Friend in support of her efforts to ensure that her community can use newly built local schools.

Nicholas Soames: The British Government have always played a very important role in the middle east peace process, so is the Leader of the House aware that it is now commonly held that the Government of Israel's treatment of the people of Gaza puts them in breach of the fourth Geneva convention, and that their illegal blockade of Gaza now amounts to collective punishment? Does she agree that it is essential for this House to have a debate to express its views, and to give our Government a stronger mandate to try and persuade the Government of Israel that it is not in their interests to proceed in this way?

Harriet Harman: The Government are in no doubt about this issue. We are strongly committed to the course of action that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but there are many hon. Members on all sides of the House who also have strong views and who would like to have an opportunity to take part in a debate. I shall therefore look for an opportunity for such a debate.

William Bain: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give consideration to holding a debate on the benefits to Scotland and the United Kingdom of the Union? Has she had an opportunity in the last week to see the helpful figures from the Scotland Office that put the fiscal benefit of the Union to Scotland at £75.7 billion since 1999? In her view, would that have happened if we had followed the advice of the Opposition parties?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter at Treasury questions next week. The benefit goes beyond just the fiscal benefit to Scotland, because the Union allows us to stand and work together to tackle the recession and to bring the UK economy into recovery. Without that protection, the situation would have been very perilous for Scotland. He may therefore like to consider raising the point in Treasury questions, when he will be able to get further information.

John Hemming: On the Wright report, will the Government give a commitment that all the Wright resolutions will be put before the House, at the very least in a form that would enable us to have a deferred Division on each recommendation?

Harriet Harman: As I have said, we are going to table 21 recommendations, which is a substantial number, in four key areas that I have identified along with other recommendations. If there are further issues that hon. Members believe would secure the support of the House, they can do so by tabling amendments to other recommendations when we deal with those that are not agreed on the initial day.

Albert Owen: Tomorrow, Friday 29 January, is SOS day, on which the Royal National Lifeboat Institution will celebrate the work of our lifeboats and their crews. I declare an interest as a member of its council. The year 2009 was the busiest year for the RNLI crews, as more than 8,000 people were rescued. Can we have a debate on their efforts and the work that they do, and on the linkage with search and rescue teams and other maritime services, as that would raise awareness of safety incidents and the perils of the sea?

Harriet Harman: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the RNLI, and I suggest that he seek an opportunity in Westminster Hall to debate it, to allow other Members who agree with him to express their views, too.

Peter Bone: First, may I tell the right hon. and learned Lady how well she did yesterday? Has she considered a job swap? Returning to a question asked by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), after 450 years, the good citizens of Calais have come to their senses and want to become part of the United Kingdom. What steps has the right hon. and learned Lady taken in that regard, and when we open up her heart, will she have "Calais" carved on it?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will have to give me notice of his questions, so I can work out a witty riposte.

Mr. Speaker: Relating to next week's business, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman's question did.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will have to give me about 24 hours on that one.

Jim Sheridan: There appears to be some ambiguity surrounding the implementation of temporary and agency workers legislation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the House and clarify the position and the impact on hundreds of thousands of workers in the UK?

Harriet Harman: I will ask Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of their correspondence in the House of Commons Library. The protection of temporary and agency workers is important not only to protect those workers against exploitation but to prevent other people from having their terms and conditions undermined by those who would exploit workers. This is an important issue, and I will make sure that he receives a letter.

Andrew Robathan: I am very suspicious about No. 42. The dates of the Easter recess are not important to MPs, because I doubt whether many MPs will take a holiday over Easter, for obvious reasons. However, they are important to all the staff of the House, as they would allow them to take a family-friendly holiday. Will the Leader of the House speak to her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and tell him to stop dithering and call an election now? Afterwards, Deo volente, the shadow Leader of the House will sit in her position and can determine the date of the Easter recess.

Harriet Harman: We will announce the recess in the normal way, and I shall do so at an early opportunity.

Tom Watson: We are entering an era in which the mark of an open society is the way in which it guarantees access to open knowledge through the internet. It is therefore vital that liberal democracies do not send mixed signals to closed societies that seek to restrict internet freedoms for their citizens. The anti-counterfeiting trade agreement that is being discussed in Mexico might inadvertently do that, so may we have a debate in the House so that hon. Members can test that notion and find out more about our negotiating position?

Harriet Harman: I will look for an opportunity to debate that issue, which may benefit from a debate in Westminster Hall. We believe that it would be helpful if there were more transparency on the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement negotiations. As is common practice in trade negotiations, the ACTA negotiations are taking place in confidence, and working documents are not disclosed without the consent of all the negotiating parties. Our officials have been asked to press for more transparency at every opportunity, and have consistently argued for that in the ACTA negotiations, and in bilaterals with our partners. We will raise the issue, as my hon. Friend requests, in Mexico where the negotiations are under way.

John Mason: The Leader of the House said it would be good if Scotland and England stood together. May we have a statement or debate on the Student Loans Company, as Glasgow will suffer as a result of the SLC redundancies? Jobs are being transferred from Glasgow to England, which suggests that the Government are anti-Scotland and anti-Glasgow.

Harriet Harman: It does not suggest any such thing, and if the hon. Gentleman wants further information, he can table a written question.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate on the leniency shown by magistrates courts to celebrities? Rock star Pete Doherty recently appeared in Gloucester magistrates court on drug and driving offences. While he was there, a sack of heroin fell out of his pocket, and 13 others were found on his person in court. Yesterday, he was given a £750 fine. Does she agree that we need to encourage courts to take a firmer grip on this?

Harriet Harman: I know these issues concern the public very much, but my hon. Friend will recognise that it is not right for the House to second-guess magistrates in any particular case or, indeed, in any part of the criminal justice system, which must operate independently of our elected representatives.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week entitled, "Treasury interference in helicopter procurement", which would enable previous Defence Secretaries to make the point that they made to the Chilcot inquiry: that the Prime Minister interfered with requests from the Ministry of Defence for funding, with the result that helicopters that would otherwise be available in Afghanistan are not available, and lives have been lost as a direct consequence?

Harriet Harman: I strongly refute the implication behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. If he wants to raise those issues, he can do so in Treasury questions next week.

David Drew: Gloucestershire county council is conducting a review of schools that are part of the national challenge arrangements. In my constituency, that involves the closure of the Vale of Berkeley college. There are two questions relating to that on the consultation document, which can largely be accessed on the internet. One is about closure, and the other is about a "hard" federation. The second suggestion is not viable, so we need a third question about whether the school could become a co-operative trust school. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do something to make sure that we get a fair consultation in the county?

Harriet Harman: I will raise that matter with Ministers in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and ask them to see whether they can support my hon. Friend in securing a fair consultation for his constituents.

Nicholas Winterton: When Robin Cook was Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, it produced a unanimous report on the election of Members to Select Committees. Unfortunately, although the measure was supposed to be decided on a free vote, the Government opposed it. Can the Leader of the House give us a firm assurance that when matters relating to the Wright report come before the House, not only for debate but for voting purposes, there will be a genuine free vote on the part of the Government and the Government Whips Office?

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing commitment to these issues and, indeed, his work over many years on the Modernisation Committee. I can assure him that when the Wright issues come before the House, that will be House business and it will be subject to a free vote.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate in the House on policing and security in London? The Mayor of London was elected on a promise to provide strong leadership for the Metropolitan Police Authority, and some of us would like to scrutinise exactly what he thinks he has achieved that makes him believe he can break his promise to the people of London and not give up his £250,000-a-year job with  The Daily Telegraph.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a trail of broken promises. First, the Mayor said that he would respect the autonomy-the operational independence-of the Metropolitan police, but then he decided to grab it and try to run it himself from City hall. Now, he is saying he is too busy to do so, although my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out that he does not seem to be too busy to earn a lot of money writing for the newspapers. I will ask Ministers at the Home Office to look into the issue.

Bob Russell: Can the Leader of the House find time in the week after next for a debate on "An Anatomy of the Economic Inequality in the UK," a report of the National Equality Panel, produced by the Government Equalities Office, which was available to the media on Tuesday but was still not available today to Members in the Vote Office? Will she link that with votes on early-day motion 343, on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation audit on poverty?
	[ That this House registers its dismay that an audit undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that poverty is at the same level as it was in 2000, with two million children in low-income households, unemployment at a 12-year high and repossessions at six times the level of 2004; and urges the Government to pursue policies to eradicate poverty and promote equality.]
	Will she also link it with early-day motion 297, on the Fabian Society study on poverty? Those three reports all point out the failures of the Labour Government.

Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read the extensive summary, at least, that has been published, he will recognise that the report shows that we have narrowed the gap between rich and poor, which was growing under the Conservative Administration in the 1980s, and that we have halted the growth in inequality, but that we need to do more to narrow it. We have already had a debate in the House on improving social mobility in accessing the professions, following the Milburn report. This is a constant theme in Children, Schools and Families questions and in Treasury questions as we seek to tackle unemployment. It will also be a subject in considering health issues when we get the Marmot report on health inequalities. There will not be a single debate. The topic will be a running theme of how we make sure that this country is fair, and as we do more to tackle the historic inequality that the hon. Gentleman knows has been handed down from generation to generation.

Andrew MacKay: Why has the Leader of the House yet again, this time in replying to the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), failed to give a guarantee that the Prime Minister is coming to make an important statement next week? Clearly, it is in the interests of the House that there be a statement from the Prime Minister on the Afghanistan conference, probably on the Yemen conference and probably, if matters develop, on the Northern Ireland peace process negotiations.

Harriet Harman: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister was in Northern Ireland in those very important talks; that is why he was unable to be back in the House yesterday. He is engaged in the talks relating to Afghanistan, and he seeks to do all the very important work as Prime Minister of this country and internationally, and also to keep the House updated. I will look up the figures-I think he has given an unprecedented number of statements to the House. In his "Governance of Britain" statement in July 2007, he said that he would make it a priority to give statements to the House and keep the House informed, and he has done that. I cannot announce in advance what statements any Minister is to make, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister regards it as a priority to keep the House informed.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the desirability of prisoners having Sky TV in their cells? When I asked in 2006 how many prisoners had Sky TV in their cells, the answer was 1,500. When I asked the same question again just before Christmas, the figure had risen to 4,070. Many of my constituents-law-abiding people-would love to be able to afford to have Sky TV, but cannot. Why should prisoners be able to have Sky TV in their cells? May we have a debate so that we can find out how the Government justify that?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman can ask a question in Home Office questions. We have been clear in our approach to prison policy, but we have been baffled by the prison policy of the official Opposition. Last week they announced their policy on prison ships. The policy sailed on Wednesday, but it seemed to have sunk by Thursday.

Jo Swinson: I am sure the Leader of the House will share my concern about the recent crackdown on press freedom and the imprisonment of human rights activists in Kazakhstan. That is all the more ironic because this year, Kazakhstan chairs the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which of course promotes democracy. May we have a debate to discuss this worrying situation and what influence the Government might be able to bring to bear to get Kazakhstan to take its international responsibilities as chair of the OSCE more seriously?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Foreign Secretary to write to the hon. Lady to reassure her on those points in relation to Kazakhstan.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on Somalia? Is it not the case that a small minority of Somalis are leaving the United Kingdom, travelling to Somalia, trying to undermine the transitional Government in Mogadishu, which the Government support, training in terror camps, and coming back to this country trained up and possibly posing a threat to our national security?

Harriet Harman: Obviously, in relation to any country that is vulnerable to being infiltrated by those who support terrorism internationally, we work internationally. I will ask the Foreign Secretary to update the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Murrison: The Leader of the House will have seen in the press recently the fruits of the labours of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in trying to sell their eleventh-hour improvements to veterans health care. Given that the matter is of enormous importance to veterans and to Members of the House, will the right hon. and learned Lady try to encourage her colleagues, if it is not too much trouble, to come to the House to explain what they plan so that that can be subject to proper scrutiny here?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to talk about eleventh-hour improvements to veterans health care. There has been a sustained focus on the improvement to veterans health care, whether that is primary care, with new arrangements with the NHS, hospital care or mental health services. If he looks at the Command Paper that was issued by the Secretary of State for Defence a couple of years ago and all the work that has transpired following that, he will realise that his comments are ill-judged. If he wants to suggest anything specific that would contribute to the improvements that are under way, I am sure the Secretary of State for Defence, working with the Health Secretary, would look at that positively.

Mark Harper: As the Leader of the House knows, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill is being debated next week. Being formidably well briefed, she will also know that my new clause 1 would remove section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which discriminates against Members of Parliament who have a mental health problem. She will also know that Mr. Speaker's Conference on parliamentary representation recommended that that provision of the Mental Health Act be abolished as soon as possible and a Select Committee report on it. She will know, too, that a Minister in the Justice Department committed the Government to that course of action this Tuesday. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to ask his Committee to look at the matter at the earliest opportunity. If he does so and brings his recommendations forward, will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the House gets an early opportunity to make a decision so that people in this country with a mental health problem recognise that Members of the House treat mental health and physical disabilities in exactly the same way and do not discriminate against one or the other?

Harriet Harman: I strongly support the work that the hon. Gentleman is doing on that and the principles that lie behind it. It has, as he says, been taken up by work underlying the Speaker's Conference. The matter is still under consideration, but I will make sure that we get back to him as soon as possible to let him know how we intend to respond to the situation when the CRAG Bill returns to the House.

Michael Penning: I am sure the Leader of the House and all colleagues in the House will pay tribute to our armed forces in Afghanistan, whom I had the pleasure of visiting last week. What was very sad and very annoying was that when we went through Brize Norton, Commonwealth soldiers who are fighting for this country, for our armed forces, were segregated and not allowed to fly with the rest of the British soldiers because they did not have a British passport. I can see that the right hon. and learned Lady is somewhat bemused by that. Will she contact the Ministry of Defence and find out why Commonwealth soldiers, particularly South African soldiers, are not allowed to go through the United Arab Emirates into theatre and why such segregation takes place, and come back to the House to explain why they are treated in such an appalling way?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Secretary of State for Defence to write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of his letter in the House of Commons Library.

Evan Harris: On the Wright report, I agree that we cannot go on like this, with suspicious minds. To allay suspicions, given what the Leader of the House said, could she reply to the Wright Committee setting out which of the 21 Wright report recommendations she plans to put, thereby helping everyone to identify which recommendations do not currently find favour with the Government? That would be open and straightforward. I commend that action to her.

Harriet Harman: The issue is not just about those recommendations that do or do not find favour with the Government, but about those on which we think there is a good prospect of achieving a consensus. I ask all hon. Members, when they talk about the issue, at least to be fair and recognise that there is no House unanimity against which the Government are standing; there are different views, and we have to work out where there is a consensus. It is not just a question of what we do not find favour with; it is a question of the recommendations with which we think the House is able to move forward. All the motions will be tabled in good time so that hon. Members can consider them, and I have told the House about the four big-ticket areas where we want to make changes. They are the election of Select Committee Chairmen; the election of Select Committee members; the ability to introduce private Members' motions to the House and vote on them; and a business Committee for Back-Benchers' issues. Those are important areas, and I hope that we can move forward on them.

Tim Loughton: Child protection issues have remained prominent in the headlines since the tragic events at Edlington, and, while the Government have been in denial, suppressed reports have been oozing out of Doncaster showing what a basket-case the local authority was. One report that I have seen shows that social workers were not registered, and that children's services staff were not even Criminal Records Bureau-checked. Can we have a rational debate on that topical and important subject to ensure not only that other serious case reviews that are due to come out are properly authored, but that we learn their lessons properly? We will not do so all the time that they are not published.

Harriet Harman: That matter was discussed in the House in 2006, when child protection issues such as serious case reviews were reformed and reviewed. I certainly think it right that all the findings from which lessons need to be learned be made public; there is no point in producing a finding and then not sharing it, because all those people who are supposed to act differently will not know and the lessons will not be learned. However, it has been agreed over the years, with the support of children's organisations and, indeed, the official Opposition, that the investigative background to the findings be not published, so that the investigation can range widely. The Opposition have not made any substantive proposals to change that; they have come forward with lots of fire and brimstone. Therefore, it would be much better to have a sensible discussion about how we bring into the public domain as much information as possible-within the purview of those serious case reviews-and then the findings. We all recognise that there were major problems in Doncaster, and they are being addressed.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the right hon. and learned Lady's attention to early-day motion 623, which concerns First Capital Connect's disastrously-shockingly-bad service to its passengers?
	 [ That this House believes that the ongoing disruption to First Capital Connect services travelling into London needs to stop; deplores the severe reduction in timetabled services due to mismanagement by First Capital Connect, which has not employed enough drivers to cover the shifts needed; is concerned that commuters are having to find alternate routes into work and school, adding considerable time and expense to their daily journeys; notes the petition on the Number 10 website calling on the Prime Minister to act on this matter; calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to recognise this gross lack of competence; further notes that the current disruption is a breach of the franchise; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to serve immediate notice to terminate the franchise agreement with First Capital Connect and to offer the franchise to a more capable organisation. ]
	Some 4,923 people have signed the petition on the No. 10 website. In Transport questions I asked the Minister of State to set out how soon we could expect the Secretary of State to come to a view about whether First Capital Connect will have its franchise terminated. The Minister did not answer that question, so can we have a statement as soon as possible so that he can answer it and say what else the Government are doing?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise that issue on Thursday 25 February in a debate about the Transport Committee's report on rail fares and franchises.

Philip Hollobone: Will Her Majesty's Government support the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill, which is scheduled for future business? While ensuring proper scrutiny, will the Leader of the House try to encourage its prompt and efficient passage through both Houses before Dissolution?

Harriet Harman: I shall ask the Secretary of State who is responsible for that work to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Pelling: The Leader of the House is aware that Croydon's branch of the Young Christian Workers came to see me in the House this week. It is made up mainly of eloquent young women, although there are some young men in it, too, and they were here to talk about the continuing "Get Fair" campaign. Would it be appropriate, before the general election, to have a debate in the House about the important issue of poverty reduction among young people? It has been at the centre of the Government's programme of work throughout many Departments, but much more needs to be done, which is why the YCW's "Get Fair" campaign is so important.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, because it gives me the opportunity to join him in commending the work of Croydon's Young Christian Workers. Their concerns and his are shared by other young people throughout the country, and during the current economic difficulties the Government have remained committed to tackling poverty and disadvantage. The pre-Budget report committed further support to vulnerable families and set out the key principles that will guide our strategy to eradicate child poverty; and we have of course legislated to frame and enshrine those targets in law.

Greg Mulholland: How does the Leader of the House compare the conduct and behaviour of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned knowing that she was right, with that of senior Ministers, who took us into an illegal war knowing that they were wrong? Can we have a debate in the House about what happens after the Iraq inquiry? If it emerges-as it seems it will-that the Government took us into an illegal war and breached international law, that will not be the end of the matter. Can we therefore have a debate to discuss what action will be taken if that is what emerges?

Harriet Harman: We do not accept that the use of force in Iraq was unlawful, and the issue was before the House when it voted to support the use of force. The Attorney-General at the time, Lord Goldsmith, gave evidence to the Chilcot inquiry yesterday, setting out the processes whereby he, as Attorney-General, was the authoritative adviser to the Government on that issue. What happens after the inquiry has reported is a matter best considered when we have had an opportunity to see its substantive report.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for the co-operation of the House, thereby enabling all colleagues to be accommodated within the session in a reasonably timely fashion. We are going to proceed to the topical debate-

Bob Russell: rose-

Mr. Speaker: But not before we have heard a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

Point of Order

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and help as to how hon. Members can access official Government reports. I refer to the report entitled, "An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK", which the Government Equalities Office produced. Copies were made available to the media on Tuesday, but the report is still not available in the Vote Office, and the suspicion is that, because the report includes very bad news for the Government, it was released in a crowded news week with stories about Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. It is a damning report on the Government's incompetence on poverty in the UK over the past 12 years or so, but hon. Members still cannot obtain a copy of it in the Vote Office.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand his frustration, which is almost certainly shared by other right hon. and hon. Members, that the report is not currently available in the Vote Office-though my understanding is that the Vote Office has received copies of the Government's response to the report. I accept that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs; I gather that the Vote Office is working at this moment to put matters right; and the hon. Gentleman of course has done us all a service by placing his concerns on the record.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Topical debate

Shahid Malik: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Holocaust Memorial Day.
	I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for selecting this subject for debate. Holocaust memorial day is a commemoration that enjoys support from all parts of the House. It is right that hon. Members make time to discuss these issues, which have such enduring significance, and it is right that we stand together as one to send a clear message to those who minimise, dispute or even deny the relevance of these issues today. As someone who has visited the Majdanek death camp, I feel repulsed by some of those individuals.
	I am confident that hon. Members will join me in ensuring that the message from the House today is not just to condemn the atrocities of the past, but to affirm their ability to speak to us now. When speaking of the Holocaust, there is a constant risk. To many of us, the sheer scale of the horror is too much to take in.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister mentioned Majdanek, which I had the great honour of visiting with him and other parliamentarians. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does such great work in informing and educating parliamentarians, as well as schools up and down the land, about the holocaust?

Shahid Malik: Absolutely; the Holocaust Educational Trust, its chief executive, Karen Pollock, and its chair, Lord Janner, do an amazing job. That is why I am very pleased that between 2006 and 2011 this Government will have invested a total of some £9 million, which has already led to about 4,500 pupils and 1,000 teachers being able to go out there and really experience it.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I know he has limited time. May I add to what was said in the previous intervention? The Holocaust Educational Trust tells us of the sheer industrial scale of the evil of man to man. I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where so much evil was perpetrated in such a dreadful fashion. We must always remember that, and that is why it is important that this debate is taking place.

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman is obviously correct. These are issues that we cannot just talk about in a historical context, because, sadly and tragically, they are as relevant today as they were all those years ago.
	As I was saying, when speaking of the holocaust, there is a constant risk. To many of us, the sheer scale of the horror, to which hon. Members have alluded, is too much to take in. We cannot describe the enormity of what we have read about or witnessed on visits to death camps. We cannot begin to relate to the hatred that motivated people to act so barbarically. We cannot understand how people abandoned their own humanity to participate in such horrors. Many others before us have looked at the holocaust and said, "Never again"; but appallingly the Shoah, even if unparalleled in scale, was not the horror that ended all horrors.

Julie Morgan: I have great sympathy and support for my hon. Friend's remarks. Is he aware that the all-party group on Gypsy and Traveller law reform will today hold a meeting at which we will mark the estimated 220,000 Gypsies who died in the holocaust? Does he agree how important it is to remember what happened to the Gypsies and to all the other people who died in the holocaust?

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At least 200,000 Roma and Sinti people were killed. It is right that we acknowledge the suffering of all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis: some 11 million in total-a conservative figure-and 6 million of them because they were Jewish.

David Winnick: Nearly 50 years after the second world war, it is estimated that nearly 800,000 people were murdered in Rwanda; we should remember that. When the Home Affairs Committee went on a visit to Russia and Ukraine, we paid our respects-I suggested that it should be so and my colleagues readily agreed-at Babi Yar, just outside Kiev, where in September 1941 30,000 men, women and children were murdered simply because they were of Jewish origin, and nothing to do with religion or anything else; and that was before the death camps, of course.

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in these issues, is absolutely correct. As I have said on several occasions, and we will all say during this debate, the scale of the horrors is very hard to comprehend and imagine. All the interventions that we have heard so far have come from people who have been touched by having made an effort to go out there and understand the issues more closely.

Andrew Murrison: I have not been to Auschwitz-Birkenau with the Holocaust Educational Trust, but I have attended the debriefing that young people get following their visits, which is extremely salutary. Does the Minister agree that the real genius of the trust is its ability to trace the development of anti-Semitism in Germany and to impress upon young people that this happened not simply in isolation but, disturbingly and disquietingly, has parallels with the way that we live our lives today? That brings it home to young people that such things could happen again, and, one hopes, helps us to guard against that. That is the real message of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That is the power of the work of the trust. It ensures that people understand the relevance of that historical genocide and holocaust in today's world, and understand how something so evil that it is completely unimaginable could start from something that was perceived in some ways to be relatively benign.
	On this continent alone, we have seen thousands killed in Bosnia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, we have witnessed 1 million people dying in Rwanda; and hundreds of thousands have died in Darfur. In Cambodia, well over 1 million people died. These figures are surely incomprehensible. Yet it is not the numbers alone that speak of the evil of genocide-it is the mentality of those who committed the acts, systematically dehumanising people on account of their race, their religion or their ethnicity; treating them worse than livestock. The inhumanity is not the victims' but the perpetrators'. A phrase used by the Khmer Rouge brutally sums up this inhumanity: "To spare you is no profit, to destroy you is no loss."
	Perhaps the degree of evil allows us some hope. The fact that we feel such discomfort in the face of horror allows us to reassure ourselves that this could never happen in our lifetime. But I hope that hon. Members agree that this hope would be misplaced. We cannot simply say, "Never again." Only if we act on our hope-if we determine that we will learn history's lessons-will we have honoured the memory of those who suffered and perished in the genocides.

Theresa Villiers: I am sure that the Minister will agree that Holocaust memorial day provides a salutary reminder not only of the gravity of the evil of which humanity is capable but of the fact that so many people stood by and let it happen; that is one of the most disturbing things that I have always drawn from these commemoration days. It is also worth remembering, however, that not everyone did that, and that some people stood up for those who were being persecuted. In that respect, it is particularly important to remember those who supported the Kindertransport, which saved so many Jewish children.

Shahid Malik: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. Edmund Burke reminds us that, for evil to prevail, all that is required is that good people do nothing. She is also right to highlight the importance of recognising the efforts, in some cases courageous efforts, of those who did so much, often at personal risk to themselves. That is why, in April last year, the Prime Minister announced that we would commemorate those holocaust heroes-something that we are hoping to do very shortly.
	As some hon. Members will be aware, I am proud to be a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust; I am also a patron of the Wiener Library. Yesterday marked the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which has become a byword for the evils of the holocaust. The theme of that day was "The Legacy of Hope". I attended the national day in London, while tens of thousands of people gathered at hundreds of local events.

Jim Cunningham: I have been to Auschwitz, which is horrendous for anybody who goes there. I am glad that the Government, through their education policies, are encouraging schoolchildren to go from Britain to visit that place, because going there and seeing the photographs of young women-looking into their eyes, they seem to be pleading-is horrendous and has quite an effect. I urge the Government to encourage a lot more of those visits.

Shahid Malik: My hon. Friend is obviously right. It may sound perverse, but for those of us who have had the privilege to go there, it has been truly life-transforming. That is why the work of the trust is so important.
	The inspiration for Holocaust memorial day was the "Secret Archive of Oneg Shabbat". The archive is a compendium of testimonies and histories of various residents from the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, which were written down and buried in milk churns. The historian who led that process, Emanuel Ringelblum, understood well that the Nazis were not just trying to contain some Jews. They were trying to eliminate the Jews-to extinguish their presence, their existence and their history, and to cut off their hope and remove their voice.

David Winnick: From the whole of Europe.

Shahid Malik: Absolutely.
	That is why Ringelblum made sure that the histories were buried. Although the Nazis did not find the histories, other people uncovered them some years later. For that reason, the victims are not forgotten. Their voices speak today, and their legacy is one that gives us hope. If we are prepared to listen, it gives us hope that their suffering is our cause for action.

John Mason: The Minister has mentioned hope a number of times, and I do not want to go against that, but does he share my opinion that this is a long-running issue? In 1290, the Jews were expelled from this country, and we cannot be over-optimistic that that will not recur in the future.

Shahid Malik: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no room for complacency, he is, of course, right. History is supposed to teach us, and it teaches us that such things happen again and again, but it might not teach us well enough that we learn. That is the challenge for us: to learn from history to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. We are much better placed today than we have ever been, but there is no room for complacency whatever.

Angela Watkinson: I am most grateful to the Minister; he is being generous in taking so many interventions. One of the most chilling lessons that I learned from visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau was that, to those who conducted the mass killings, these were not wild, emotional and uncontrolled murders, but dispassionate, calculated, organised and justified. Meticulous records of the killings were kept. Does the Minister agree that we must learn that lesson and be aware of that aspect if we are to ensure that such things never happen again?

Shahid Malik: It is profoundly chilling to consider that there was an era where so many people could believe that it was right to do what they did, in the way that they did it.
	Survivors, too, give us hope. I know that many in this Chamber will have met survivors of the holocaust, and any hon. Members who have had the privilege of speaking to them will agree that it is a deeply humbling and profoundly moving experience. The histories on the written page may record some of the horror, but they cannot properly capture the triumph of the survivors. I understand that that is an odd word to use in this context, because all the survivors will have endured unimaginable suffering and the loss of loved ones. But their spirit and dignity in the face of what happened is a triumph, and I pay tribute to them.
	A number of survivors spoke yesterday, and others had their testimonies read out by young people. Those present witnessed the force of the survivors' stories. We were then challenged to become part of the legacy of hope. I can do little better than read the invitation from the day's organisers:
	"Our responsibility is to remember those who were persecuted and murdered, because their lives were wasted. Our challenge is to make the experience and words of the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and subsequent genocides a meaningful part of our future...It is their example that can inspire us to greater action."
	My commitment to the legacy of hope is not just as an elected representative or as a Minister, but as one who shares humanity with those who died. My aim is to do all that I can to ensure that the evils of racism and hatred are challenged and rooted out. Hon. Members know that the Government have worked hard to promote the UK Holocaust memorial day-obviously with cross-party support. We give a sizeable grant to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to help it to do what it does. We also support the Holocaust Educational Trust, as I said earlier, which does outstanding work to raise awareness of the holocaust among young people and others.

Andrew Pelling: As the Minister comes to the conclusion of his speech, would he acknowledge that today is a chance for us to think positively about forgiveness and redemption? For instance, the German Government have given moneys for a proper facility at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Shahid Malik: It is true that those countries found wanting at that time-and it was not just Germany-have learned much and are incredibly progressive. It is also true, however, that there are still elements in those countries who, not so far behind the scenes, are not so disappointed with that past. That is why we have no room for complacency whatever.
	I pay tribute again to the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock, and to its chair, Lord Janner. I pay tribute to them for the work that they have done with all political parties and for the way in which they have captured the imagination of young people throughout the country through their work. I pay special tribute to Stephen Smith, the former chair of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, who has gone on to be chief executive of the Shoah Foundation in the USA. That is just recognition of the exceptional skill and commitment he brought to bear in raising awareness of the holocaust, through the trust and elsewhere, in a way that is meaningful to our lives today. The money from the Government has been magnified many times over through his dedication and that of other colleagues.
	On the subject of survivors, Eva Schloss, the stepsister of Anne Frank, was in my constituency. Often, when we are fighting the far right, we equate them with Nazis and it does not quite work. In this case, when one of the kids in my constituency asked her, "What do you think about the BNP?" she said, "I think they're no better than Nazis." That was so powerful, and it had an impact in a way that our literature could never achieve.
	On that note, I look forward to hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members on a subject that rightly commands the support of the whole House.

Bob Neill: I am sure the whole House will be in accord with the Minister, both in the content of his speech on this important topic and in the manner in which he made it. Occasionally, he and I have our differences, but on this issue he, I and everyone else in this House are entirely united. We are all grateful for the opportunity to debate this important topic.
	The Minister is right to recognise the importance of Holocaust memorial day and right, too, to recognise the tremendous work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Many of us will have come into contact with it, and we have found our experience, and our knowledge of this subject, enriched-if that is the appropriate word for so dreadful a topic-by its work. It is right that everyone has the chance to understand the horrors of what happened, so I endorse entirely everything that the Minister said.
	I, too, am sure that those of us who have had the privilege of meeting holocaust survivors will have been profoundly moved by their testimony. As the generation who suffered in the holocaust leaves us, it is all the more important that their memories are kept alive and that the lessons are learned. I was particularly struck by the comments of Members who have visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and I have visited it with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. Not only was it a deeply moving experience, but two things about it particularly struck me.
	First, it might seem trite, but it is worth restating the sheer banality of the circumstances that gave rise to such horror, and the ordinariness of what had been a run-of-the-mill army barracks but was suddenly turned into an industrial machine for the mass murder of human beings. We were standing in an office that could have been something like a 1930s local government office, but in fact millions of people were consigned to their deaths there. That brings home the fragility of what we take to be civilisation and sophistication in an advanced western society.

Andrew Pelling: May I add to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the banality of Auschwitz-Birkenau? When we visited, we saw the pictures of a band welcoming people who had come there. That was one of the saddest deceits that could have been made against people who were ultimately, or sometimes immediately, going to their death.

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we must learn the lesson from the way in which Germany, which had been a democratic state, was perverted, taken over and turned into a fascist dictatorship. We must learn just how easily that can happen, even in an educated and sophisticated society, and how the models of everyday life can be twisted and perverted to evil ends. That strikes us hugely strongly.
	The other thing that struck me at Auschwitz-Birkenau came from looking at many photographs, which I also had the chance to do when I visited the holocaust museum in Israel. I thought back to the photographs that I saw of my parents as young people and my grandparents at about the same time, in the 1930s and '40s. Those in the photographs that I saw were the same type of people, from every rank of society and dressed in much the same fashions of the time. In a sense, it could have been my parents and grandparents. It is hugely important to bring that home to people. It echoes the words of Pastor Niemöller that he did not speak up for others when people came for them, and in the end no one was left to speak up for him. That is a hugely important part of the work.

David Burrowes: I commend what my hon. Friend is saying. The message that came across to me and the students from my constituency who went to Auschwitz-Birkenau two years ago, which I was reminded of yesterday, was that the holocaust was not just about the huge scale, numbers and evil consequences but about the individual lives lost and the effect on families and communities. Future generations of families were lost, and that message certainly came home yesterday.
	I commend the Holocaust Educational Trust for its ongoing work, not just for what happened yesterday. I was appreciative to hear that in my school, holocaust educators do work throughout the curriculum throughout the year to bring the message home.

Bob Neill: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's sentiments. In fact, I will turn in a moment to some of that work.
	The final thing that I was going to say about my visit and the lessons of it was on a point of irony. The evening when we came back from Auschwitz-Birkenau, the leader of the British National party was on "Question Time", which seemed to me a particularly obscene juxtaposition and perhaps reinforced my point about the need for vigilance. Even in societies that we think are sophisticated and democratic, that can be undermined. We must always be alert to that.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that even though people put on suits and ties and stand on doorsteps telling lies, a Nazi is still a Nazi today as it was during the war years?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right-evil is evil however it is dressed, and we need to restate that continuously. I was struck by an interesting article in  The Times by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who made the interesting and historically justified point that anti-Semitism is a virus that mutates. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) mentioned the expulsion of the Jews from this country in mediaeval times, and my hon. Friend pointed out in his article that over the years, the rationalisation for anti-Semitism has changed and been twisted. Initially it was perhaps on the basis of religion, the blood libel and so on, and then it was twisted almost in Nietzschean terms to a scientific, race selection reason. Even today, we have to be alert to the fact that it mutates again into a denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and a homeland.

Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Community Security Trust, in its meticulous collection of data, has shown that there has been a record rise in attacks on Jewish people? Is that not a stain on our society?

Bob Neill: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I have been greatly impressed by the impeccable work of the CST. I have come across a number of its organisers and volunteers, and it is right to remember that they do great work. It should be a matter of the deepest concern to all Members that such attacks can continue and that external factors are often perverted to give rise to the increase in anti-Semitism, which I am sure we all condemn.

David Winnick: I agree with that. Saturday will be an unhappy anniversary, because it will be 77 years to the day since Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. Returning to the domestic scene, which the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) mentioned, does the hon. Gentleman accept that although immigration is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate-no one is suggesting otherwise, certainly not myself-there should be particular care in the coming general election about how the debate is conducted? It must be very far from the BNP. If we are talking about discrimination and the persecution of Jews, we must bear in mind that as we saw in Stoke last Saturday, there are also other groups in this country who are subject to racist thugs who will use any sort of lie against the Muslim community.

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why it is important first that the mainstream democratic parties are not afraid to address these issues, but also that we set a lead in the tone and responsibility with which we do so. That is hugely important. He is quite right that issues are sometimes hijacked by extremists-we have seen the operations of the English Defence League as well as the BNP, and it is right that we are vigilant against extremism of all kinds.
	I mentioned the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which many hon. Members have referred to. I am glad that we are able to do so. It was a Conservative Government who had holocaust education introduced into the national curriculum in 1991, and I am glad that the current Government have enabled that work to expand and continue. My party will always continue to support it, as I am sure all responsible and democratic parties will. It is important that holocaust education remains a part of the core history curriculum. As other hon. Members have said, I hope that other opportunities are taken to bring the topic forward within the curriculum as well. Some local education authorities ensure that it is addressed in religious studies, citizenship and other appropriate areas. It is important that every opportunity is sensibly and sensitively used, and I am sure that we all want funding for such schemes to be supported and continued, because education is crucial to all of us in dealing with these matters.
	The Holocaust Educational Trust's outreach programme is crucial and central to its work. I have had the privilege of witnessing in some schools the profound impact that a survivor or someone with direct experience makes. The "Think Equal" scheme has been devised specifically for schools in areas of racial tension and it therefore deals to some extent with the issues that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) rightly raised. We should not limit the education to being about only one community. The scheme works with staff and educators to enable students to focus on the dangers of racism across the board, taking the holocaust as an experience that leads to general application. Surely that, too, is commendable. The scheme also provides training for trainee teachers. It is hugely important that teachers are alert to the subject. Holocaust memorial day is therefore the visible part of a much wider, more significant and very valuable programme.
	I hope that the good work that is done in schools will be reflected in some of our institutions of higher education. I greatly hope that we will continue to make the case to the university sector for adopting the EUMC-European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia-definition of anti-Semitism and to deal appropriately with speakers who transgress.
	There are still things that we can do practically to take the survivors' legacy forward. The students from Bullers Wood school in my constituency, with whom I had the privilege of travelling, were bright, intelligent young people and the experience played on their minds. One could tell that from talking to them on the plane coming back. That is why the programme is important and I am glad to say that more students from schools in my constituency and many others throughout the country will go this year.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) represented the official Opposition at the national commemoration yesterday. We are united in recognising the importance of Holocaust memorial day, and I echo my right hon. Friend's words that it is
	"vital that we teach generations today and in the future"
	about what happened and the lessons to be learned. I am sure that all parties in the House wish to continue to support the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and that we all appreciate the importance of Holocaust memorial day.

Andrew Dismore: I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House accepted my request for the debate, which has become an annual institution. Yesterday was the 10th national Holocaust memorial day commemoration. I take pride in the fact that I devised the parliamentary strategy that led to its being established. I do not take credit for the idea behind it, but for focusing the campaign to make it happen. That occurred after a visit I paid to Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust and the personal impact it made on me.
	We all have our memories of a visit to Auschwitz and it is always something little that suddenly strikes us. What struck me, from the industrial scale of what I saw, were the piles of shoes and boots, from which every single shoelace had been removed by some poor slave labourer. That brings home the industrial nature of what happened.
	I pay particular tribute to Rabbi Barry Marcus for his work. On the plane back from the visit, I thought, "What can I do as an individual to stop this happening again?" Having the privileged position of being a Member of Parliament meant that I had access to the private Member's Bill process and parliamentary questions to push forward the idea of a memorial day on a cross-party basis.
	The motivation was not just to draw attention to the visits to Auschwitz, but to reflect on what I picked up from my constituency. I have the biggest Jewish constituency in the country-one in five people are Jewish. The holocaust is in many ways a living thing in that community. Many debates, discussions and arguments about its implications for modern society go on. However, those discussions are introverted and go on among Jewish people, and I took the view that we needed to try to turn them outward to engage society as a whole. If there were another holocaust-please God, there will not be-it would not come from within the Jewish community, who would be the victims, but from wider society, as happened in Germany. It would come from people from my sort of background-an ordinary small town in Yorkshire or wherever, where there are not many Jewish people. That is why it is important to turn the debate outwards.
	The idea was not to rival Yom HaShoah, the Jewish community's own commemorative day. There were arguments in the Jewish community about whether it was a good idea and what day it should be. The purpose was to educate and inform about the lessons of the holocaust, not just on one day, but to use that day as a focus for schools and communities throughout the country. Consequently, events happen throughout the country, including in my borough of Barnet, though, for the first time, I was not invited this year, which I found distressing. We see a lot on broadcast media. Wonderful documentaries have been made and there is good news coverage. Of course, tribute has been paid to the Holocaust Educational Trust, and I am pleased that the visits to Auschwitz are supported by grants from our Government.
	As has been said, the holocaust was not about just the Jews, but the Roma and Sinti, gay people, disabled people and political opponents. I have had the opportunity of meeting holocaust survivors at the Holocaust Survivors Centre, which is part of Jewish Care and is based in my constituency. An estimated 5,000 survivors of the camps or refugees live in the UK now, but they are, inevitably, a dwindling band. Indeed, I spoke to the chap sitting in front of me, who was a holocaust survivor, at the ceremony yesterday and he told me that seven of his friends had died in the previous year.
	I pay tribute to Judith Hassan, Jewish Care's director of services for holocaust survivors and refugees, and her staff for the work of the Holocaust Survivors Centre. It provides a social centre for survivors, practical advice, befriending and, most important, a recording of testimonies. As survivors age, it is vital that their legacy is recorded. The imaginative legacy of hope means that those testimonies must live on.
	We have all heard the moving stories of many prominent holocaust survivors-Ben Helfgott, Gena Turgel and others, who do such magnificent job going around schools-but talking to those who perhaps do not have the same confidence or are less prominent, such as the chap to whom I spoke yesterday, also sends out the message.
	Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I visited Poland with the Holocaust Educational Trust and the all-party group on anti-Semitism. We went to Warsaw and Majdanek. As my hon. Friend said, in Warsaw, we saw the effort not just to eliminate the Jews, but to obliterate all memory of them. The first thing we saw were tram tracks going nowhere in the middle of a wasteland. Our guide said, "Before the war, this was the Warsaw equivalent of Oxford street." It had been completely obliterated. We have heard of the ghetto uprising-the first civilian uprising against the Nazis. The Jews were outnumbered 1,000 to one, and the Germans' technological advantages were enormous, but they held out for nearly a month-27 days in 1943-to make the point that there were people who were prepared to resist.
	My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned Oneg Shabbat, the extraordinary archive-the secret archive, which was inspired by Emmanuel Ringelblum, a holocaust victim, to ensure that the memory of the Jewish community lasted. Those people had no way of knowing whether the milk churns would be found, or whether they would be found by the Germans and destroyed, but that was their legacy of hope. In Emmanuel Ringelblum's words:
	"It must all be recorded with not a single fact omitted. And when the time comes-as it surely will-let the world read and know what the murderers have done."
	I also had the opportunity of meeting Elie Wiesel when he came to receive his honorary knighthood. He said that
	"hope without memory is like memory without hope."
	On our visit to Poland, we went to villages where all traces of the substantial majority Jewish population have been eliminated-completely wiped out. In one village, we found the synagogue down a back street, locked up and now used as a store room. The grave stones had been dug up and used to pave the roads. Some had been recovered and turned into a moving and poignant memorial in the forest some distance away from the village.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we visited Majdanek on the outskirts of Lublin. The Polish people must have known what was going on there; they were pretty powerless to do anything about it. We visited the Parliament in Warsaw, and what brought matters home to me there was the memorial to hundreds of Polish Members of Parliament who had been murdered by the Nazis. Those who had not been murdered by the Nazis were killed by Stalin. That brings it home that if it had happened here, none of us would have survived because the intention was to eliminate the leadership of the country.
	It was interesting to talk to the Chief Rabbi in Poland-an American rabbi who had gone to live there-and hear how children of the holocaust who had been adopted by Polish families and become Catholics, because that was predominant religion in Poland, were now rediscovering their Jewish heritage and looking into their backgrounds and families.
	I pay tribute to the Yad Vashem "The Guardian of the Memory" scheme, which I launched in Parliament two years ago on 23 January 2008. The idea behind it is for us all to take on the responsibility of remembering a victim of the holocaust and light a candle on Yom HaShoah. I asked Yad Vashem whether it could identify victims of the holocaust who were MPs, and it came up with 12 names, whom we paired with living MPs. I chose Itzhak Seiakis who was a Greek MP-the whole House knows that I am quite interested in Greek affairs and speak Greek. Seventy-seven thousand Jews lived in Greece before the holocaust; 60,000 were murdered. All we knew about Itzhak was that he was born in 1882 in Larissa and died in 1942 in Auschwitz. Rather than just light a candle, I felt it was incumbent on me to find out more about him and to turn him into a person, as it were, in memory.
	Using my connections in Greece, I was able to establish that his family in Larissa were merchant tailors, originally from the island of Khios. He had been educated to a high level, probably in either Athens or Istanbul. He moved to Thessaloniki, where he became a Member of Parliament and director of the community charity organisations of the city. He was arrested along with the rest of the panel of the directorate on 14 April 1941 only six days after the Germans invaded. After a few weeks in prison in that city, he was deported to Auschwitz, where he died in 1942.
	My researches enabled me to identify a living relative, Alberto, who was living in an old people's home in Thessaloniki. He did not speak any English, so I had to try to make contact with him in Greek, but unfortunately he died weeks before I was able to do so. I regretted that I had not been able to find Alberto Seiakis's legacy of hope and hear his story, and fill in the gaps about Itzhak.
	For me, that was about trying to build on that legacy of hope-learning about people whom it is difficult to find out about. We can easily find out about prominent people, but the people who are not easy to find out about make up the 6 million Jews and the 11 million victims. Every single one was a real living person. When we talk about the telephone numbers of people who died, it is easy to forget that each was an individual person with their own family, hopes and aspirations, all of which were snuffed out by the Nazi holocaust.
	Have we achieved very much? There are still many outstanding issues from the holocaust-holocaust restitution, for example. Only last year, Parliament unanimously passed the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009, which I introduced as a private Member's Bill. It will come into force in a few days' time so that we can close yet another chapter in the holocaust and enable people to reclaim their looted works of art.
	Has Holocaust memorial day achieved the objective we originally set out for it 10 years ago? There is no doubt that there is a much wider knowledge of the holocaust now than 10 years ago; that the holocaust features in our school curricula much more than it ever did; that Holocaust memorial day has provided a focus for communities to come together to talk about the holocaust; and that it has provided an opportunity to confront those Holocaust deniers such as the British National party, as we saw with Nick Griffin on "Question Time" .
	Holocaust memorial day has also, indirectly, brought alive the holocaust for the Armenians, although they are not commemorated as part of the process. However, it has not prevented the genocide in Darfur. We remember Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, East Timor and all the other genocides that have taken place since 1945, but genocide is still with us. We must remember, through Holocaust memorial day, that there is still an awful lot more for us to do if we are ever to eliminate genocide from our planet.

Paul Keetch: I join the whole House in marking this day and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for his personal effort over many years to ensure that the House and Parliament mark this important day.
	The Minister and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned the BNP, and I add my condemnation of those Nazis. What I find particularly distasteful is its use of the Union flag to promote its vile and outrageous policies. The House and the whole country acknowledges that. My father fought in the war, in the Royal Air Force, and my mother was a nurse in the war. For all who fought Nazism in Germany, Italy and other parts of the world, I find the BNP's parading of the Union flag in that way quite repugnant. We should be concerned about that.
	We have Holocaust memorial day for two reasons, the first of which is to remember. We remember those 11 million people and 6 million Jews, the intellectuals, Gypsies, liberals and communists-people whose only crime was an accident of their birth or their views. They were not combatants or soldiers and they were not fighting a war; they were innocent men, women and children. As has already been described, they were slaughtered in an industrial way-it was not a frenzied killing or a knee-jerk reaction, but a cold calculated, brutal act of genocide.
	It marks-I suppose-the low point in human existence, because the people who did it were led by an elected Government and people who were in other ways intelligent, sensible and rational. Yet because of their hatred for certain sectors of society, they were able to perpetrate that crime. We should never forget the basic fact that it was done in our world, in our continent.
	The second reason why we should mark Holocaust memorial day was given by George Santayana:
	"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
	Sadly, as colleagues have already said, the holocaust that occurred in Nazi Germany, though bigger than almost any we have ever seen, was not the last. We have seen genocides in East Timor, Cambodia, Tibet, Burma, Bosnia, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Darfur-the list is very long-and we must never forget that we have an ongoing role in our lives, in our Parliament and in our communities to ensure that people remember what has happened and that they do not let it be repeated.
	For that reason, I too congratulate the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock and Lord Janner on the magnificent job they have done in getting the importance of listening and understanding across to young people, who perhaps do not have the same connection that some hon. Members have with those who fought in the war or who remember directly. I have not been on one of the trips to which hon. Members have referred, even though I have been invited on a number of occasions. I would like to go-even if saying that I would "like" to go sounds crazy. Sincerely, it is obvious that those who have been have found great strength. Children from my constituency have been on the trips, and it has brought home to them what happened.
	I pay tribute to those from this country who tried to do something-the Kindertransport has been mentioned. We should not forget the people in this country who tried to do something before the outbreak and in early stages of war. The British Committee for the Jews of Germany and the Movement for the Care of Children in Germany pushed through the idea that children from Germany and the occupied territories of Austria and the Czech lands should be able to come to this country. The first transport arrived on 2 December 1938 and the last left Germany in September 1939, just before the outbreak of war. Indeed, the last transport from the Netherlands to this country left on 14 May 1940, the very day that the Netherlands surrendered.
	Between 9,000 and 10,000 children came to these shores, 7,500 of whom were Jewish. It was people such as Sir Nicholas Winton who organised and facilitated that. Ordinary families from all over the United Kingdom took those children in. Those children made huge contributions to our society, and we should not forget them or the people who looked after them.
	It is almost impossible to say anything new about the holocaust. The spirit to which the Minister referred led to so much good writing and eloquence, which, frankly, none of us in this House can match. I conclude by remembering the words of Pastor Niemöller. As a German in 1946, he reflected on the fact that he and others did not come and raise their issues and concerns. In 6 January 1946, he said:
	"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a communist;
	Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist;
	Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew;
	Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak out."
	Today, in this Chamber, we are marking the fact that we remember. We should not let it happen again.

Tony McNulty: It is a pleasure, if that is the right word, to speak in this debate in this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggested, we have had a role in these events through history, however small. Let me just point out to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)-I had a row with Michael Heseltine about this once-that the Nazis were not elected. They never secured a majority. It was the foolishness of the Deutsche Zentrumspartei and the German Conservative party-no partisan point intended-that allowed Hitler and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei into power. They were never elected. That may be a small point, but I make it.
	It is instructive, too, to look back in  Hansard and read the 1937-38 debates on the emergency in Europe that led to the Kindertransport initiative. Many strong speeches were made saying that we must do something, but there were also those who asked what it had to do with us. Let us remember that this was at a time when the Prime Minister of the day, Neville Chamberlain, wrote-I do not have the exact quotation, but I cited it on the 70th anniversary of the Kindertransport-that the Jew, although rather shifty was not terribly unpleasant and we should probably do something to help them. That was the Prime Minister in 1937-38.
	When my hon. Friend asks whether national Holocaust memorial day has been successful, my answer is that that is debatable. I recently did a question time with others at a synagogue in my constituency, and some of the questions asked revolved around the issue of whether it was safe for British Jewry to remain in Britain. The answer is profoundly yes, with qualifications, but if people have to ask that, we have some way to go. Why do we remember? It is for two reasons. First, we must never forget, but secondly, we must never repeat. The two go hand in hand.
	Why do we remember the Shoah, the holocaust, more than any other historic event? It is because of its banality, its normality and its extraordinary ordinariness. It is because of the mechanised, industrial scale on which a state's decision to eradicate a race was carried out. We should not equivocate in comparing atrocities, but that mechanistic and industrial nature is unprecedented, and that is why we remember it and should continue to remember it. As the survivors fade away, we have all the more reason to remember. That is why I endorse what everyone has said about the Holocaust Educational Trust. I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau with my hon. Friend in 1998 or 1999, as he said, but as even Kindertransport survivors fade away, we should remember all the more. That is why this debate is important.
	The main point that I wish to make is that you cannot equivocate on this issue. You cannot say that you are doing all you can to avoid a subsequent holocaust if you let things slide or pass. I say that not as a partisan point: I genuinely mean it. You cannot indulge Kaminski, given his past. You cannot indulge people who dabble with the history of the Latvian Waffen SS and claim, "That's okay, we don't really mean it and we'll gloss over their history." You cannot do that and mean it when you say, "Never again." The lesson of national Holocaust memorial day must be that you cannot be just a little bit anti-Semitic. You cannot be just a little bit of a holocaust denier, and you cannot be just a little bit in support of terrorism.

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman discredits what were very moving remarks by making a partisan point and perpetuating falsehoods about the allies of the Conservatives in the European Parliament.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Lady misses the point: it was not a partisan remark. I simply say that she should look at the history. I repeat my point: if Holocaust memorial day is supposed to be about "never again" as well as remembering, we cannot equivocate.
	It is a disgrace that at any stage since the inception of national Holocaust memorial day the Muslim Council of Britain has boycotted it. I have said that to its members' faces, so I am not saying anything here that I would not say to them. It is very disappointing that Dr. Abdul Bari decided that Davos was more important than attending the commemorations. That is a matter of profound regret, given the nature and sensitivity of the day. Someone else from MCB attended in a personal capacity, whatever that means, and a rather junior person attended in Dr. Bari's stead. That is a matter for regret for MCB, as well as for the unity that we all seek.
	We cannot say "never again" and then indulge Ahmadinejad, the holocaust denier, or others. During the demonstration in London last summer-I was not on it, but I passed it-I saw genuinely sincere people holding banners saying, "We are all Hezbollah now". That made me weep when I saw it. But the leader of that movement thinks that all Jews are the grandsons and granddaughters of pigs and monkeys, he is a holocaust denier and he wants to push Israel into the sea. That is not to say that Israel is above criticism, but that is a different matter. We cannot as a Government or a country equivocate on those points. You cannot be a little in favour of terrorism and fully support national Holocaust memorial day. You cannot, as al-Qaradawi has done, condemn 7/7 here but then say that our little children bombers in the west bank and Gaza will take on Israel because it is a war state and there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. You cannot equivocate on such matters: you have to condemn, and you have to condemn harshly.
	When I talked to the British Board of Deputies early in the consideration of my hon. Friend's Bill to introduce a national Holocaust memorial day, I said that part of the purpose was to remind people that "never again" meant exactly that. As other hon. Members have said far more eloquently than I could, we have not held to that. If we slip and indulge other people and their ideologies simply because that makes things easier for us, we will fail in ensuring that it never happens again. We should, of course, engage with all communities, including the Muslim Council of Britain, but we should do it in terms that leave people in no doubt about our collective values. That includes condemning anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. If we slip on that just a little or if we tell people what they want to hear rather than what they should hear, we fail. We fail not only as a Government, but as a nation and as parliamentarians.
	The substantive point behind national Holocaust memorial day was, of course, never to forget, but-and this is where we have our failings-it is also about ensuring that it is never, ever repeated in any form, but certainly in that mechanised, racist and ethnocentric form. We are in better shape now than we were, but we are being a tad complacent if we think that somehow, 10 years on from the first national Holocaust memorial day, we have done the business and there will never be another holocaust of any description. I hope that that is right, but that legacy of hope is what we build on and hope that it is not formed of eggshells.

Lee Scott: Let me start by paying tribute to Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Educational Trust for the work that it does under her inspirational leadership, not only in our schools, but on the trips to Auschwitz. Over a number of years I have visited Babi Yar, just outside Kiev in Ukraine, to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred earlier, and Theresienstadt in the Czech Republic, as it now is, but in all honesty I had always put off visiting Auschwitz. I had been invited by the Holocaust Educational Trust on many occasions and had chosen to find a reason, which comes from my history. If my grandparents on both sides had not decided to come to this wonderful country, they would have perished in the holocaust and my parents would not have been born, and I certainly would not have been born.
	I went to Auschwitz on a quite cold Thursday morning with a plane full of wonderful young people, who will be our future. No matter how hard I tried, I was not prepared for what I experienced. I did not think I would react in the way that I did, and probably not a day has gone by since October, which is when I went, when it has not played on my mind. Of course I knew what happened in the holocaust. Like the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I have a very large Jewish community in my constituency. We can dispute who has the largest- [ Interruption. ] We will dispute that on another occasion; none the less, I have a large Jewish community and I am Jewish myself, so I was fully aware of what happened in the holocaust. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and the work he has done, and also to my good friend Lord Janner.
	Like others, when I got to Auschwitz, it was the little things that affected me. For me, it was seeing the children's shoes at the start. The last time I had cried before then was on the birth of my daughter, who is now 21, but I am not ashamed to say that it was the first time I had cried since then. The experience had an effect that I cannot really put into words. We went round Auschwitz and saw the crematorium, and as we were above the railway lines where evil people decided who should live and who should die and that children should be dragged away from their parents and murdered, I was honoured to be asked to read a poem. However, I did not make it through the poem. I cried for a second time on that visit, and at one point I could not stop myself. Was it because I felt that, but for a quirk of fate, it could have been not me, but my grandparents standing on those railway lines? I am really not sure.
	As we walked round with the young people, they asked me, "What can we do to stop this happening? How can we make a difference?" I said to them, "It's happening today. There are people out there who would do exactly the same today, whether to Jews, Muslims or any other minority group, because hatred is a terrible thing, and hatred without even knowing why you hate someone is even worse." After I was elected to this House, I received a phone call at my home from someone who said, "You dirty Jew. We're going to burn you to death." I obviously cannot tell the House who it was from-because I do not know-but hatred has not gone away.
	We owe it to ourselves never to forget. That is why I pay tribute to the work that the Holocaust Educational Trust and others do. If we are so honoured in the coming months, I would like my party-I say this from the Back Benches, but I have asked this of my party directly-to extend the programme, so that more and more young people can go and see what happened, because out there the years go by and people do not grasp the enormity of what happened.
	I should like to pay tribute to a few people in my area. Yesterday morning we stood in a quite cold holocaust memorial park, which we have built in my borough of Redbridge. I commend Councillor Alan Weinberg, who was one of the movers behind that, and Leon Schaller, who, along with others, contributed funds for the park. As Rabbi Sufrin said prayers, we stood with children from King Solomon high school and people from all different communities and religions, and we remembered. We also heard from a holocaust survivor-there are obviously fewer and fewer survivors as the years go by. I was again moved, as I am every day on Holocaust memorial day.
	It is a strange thing to describe, but when somebody says, "You went to Auschwitz. What was it like?" I have to say that I was very disturbed. I want to finish with what disturbed me the most. There were TV screens as we came in after landing at Luton airport. "Question Time" was on, and that vile man Mr. Griffin was on TV. The things he comes out with-yes, they will be dressed up to be just the right side of the law and yes, he will not actually say what he truly means-are there to divide us. I just hope that this wonderful country that we live in-and it is a wonderful country-will realise that.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend has just described what disturbed him most. What disturbed me the most-he will have seen this for himself at Auschwitz-was how the whole thing was justified by the Nazis to themselves. They convinced themselves that they were not doing anything wrong. He will have seen the accommodation for the officers who ran Auschwitz-it was where their wives and children also lived-which was no more than a stone's throw from where the prisoners were kept. The people living there could not possibly have not known what was going on, so there must have been a mindset behind it all that convinced them it was justified and that they were not doing anything wrong. That was the most dangerous thing.

Lee Scott: Yes, that is perfectly correct. The commandant and the other staff lived in close proximity to where people were being gassed. There is no way that their families did not know what was happening, but my hon. Friend is right: they convinced themselves that it was okay.
	I return to my previous point: I hope that the people in our wonderful country will realise that, whatever they choose to do, the gentleman whom I have mentioned and what he represents are not the way to go.

Jim Cunningham: As I said earlier, I went to Auschwitz about 20 years ago. People can read about it or see films and documentaries about it, but it is only when they go there and see for themselves the horrendous thing that happened in Europe in the run-up to and during the second world war that they understand. We should also pay tribute to those who took on the Mosleyites on the streets of London in the '30s, because they were courageous people as well.

Lee Scott: Again, that is absolutely correct.
	Many more people want to speak in the short time we have left, so I would like to finish by again thanking the Holocaust Educational Trust for the privilege of that experience. Even though it disturbed me and even though I think about it every day, it is right to do so, because if we do not think about it, history can repeat itself, whatever group it might be. We are duty bound to ensure that that never happens again.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me remind the House that we have approximately 20 minutes left in this debate. Three hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so perhaps all three will bear that in mind when making their remarks.

Louise Ellman: It is encouraging to see how Holocaust memorial day-set up 10 years ago following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) with all-party support-has become so much a part of the calendar and the life of this country. However, it was never intended that Holocaust memorial day should be the sole way in which the holocaust should be remembered. Indeed, its remit was not only to commemorate the unique evil of the holocaust, but to learn lessons from that for other genocides and the prejudice and hatred in the whole of our society. It is because remembering the holocaust and learning the lessons from it need action all year round that the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which was founded by Lord Janner and the late Lord Merlyn-Rees and of which I am a council member, is so important.
	Last week I was privileged to take part in the Merlyn-Rees memorial lecture, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust. There were three aspects of that event that underline the importance of holocaust education in its broadest sense throughout the year. Students from the "Lessons from Auschwitz" programme participated in that event, and talked about how their personal experience of visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau had greatly affected them and, even more importantly, led them to bring back the message about what had happened there to younger people, so that they too could learn the lessons. A reminder of the current pervasiveness of anti-Semitism was brought home very clearly by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and I commend his excellent work in this regard, which takes place all year round.
	We also listened to a presentation by Efraim Zuroff, from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. He spoke of the importance of bringing Nazi war criminals to trial. It is important to do that to ensure not only that such people are brought to justice, but that young people today can be educated about what happened in the past. It is chilling to discover that, even now, countries such as Austria and Lithuania resist bringing war criminals to trial despite solid evidence of their complicity in mass murder. That should not be allowed to continue.
	We should also look at what is happening in the United Kingdom today. The excellent work of the Community Security Trust has revealed record levels of attacks on British Jews. More than 609 incidents were recorded in the first six months of 2009, and increasing numbers of such incidents are linked with events in the middle east. There is an uneasiness across the Jewish community in this country that has not been felt for generations, and that should be a matter not only for that community but for the whole of our society. British Jews are loyal citizens of this country. They participate in and contribute to all walks of life, yet they feel increasingly uneasy and threatened in their own country.
	We should also be concerned about the messages of hate that emanate from various sources, including the internet. We are familiar with the messages of anti-Semitic hate from organisations such as the British National party. We are all aware of those, and we are rightly ready to condemn what those organisations are doing. But are we as ready to condemn the anti-Semitic messages of hate that come from Islamist jihadist sources? They are present in our society, on our university campuses and on the internet.
	Are we willing to condemn internet sites such as Hamas's al-Fateh website, which are preaching to British children at this moment messages such as the one in a column entitled "Stories of Uncle Izz al-Din"? The column depicts the Jews
	"as if they are wolves whose eyes blaze with evil, evil fills their hearts...They are indeed the murderers of the prophets".
	Should we allow such a website, with its cartoon headed "Criminal Jews" that depicts a person who is half Israeli soldier, brandishing a gun and with teeth bared, and half stereotyped diaspora Jew, with a skull cap and a big nose, grasping for money? Is it right, as we commemorate Holocaust memorial day, that that internet site should be able to broadcast such messages of hate to children in this country and elsewhere in the world? I am told by the Home Office that it is considering whether there are grounds to stop the website on a voluntary basis. It should make its mind up quickly about that. If we are serious about stopping these messages of hate, we must think not only about the BNP but about Islamist jihadist sources of hate as well. That website is one of them.
	Holocaust memorial day has never been only about what happened in the past, however horrendous and uniquely evil that was. It has always been about the present and the future as well. It is about learning the lessons of the past for present and future generations. When we talk about the Holocaust memorial day and remember that yesterday's commemorations focused on the message "The Legacy of Hope", we should renew our determination to fight hatred, prejudice and bigotry wherever we find them, so that we can create a society that is happy, acceptable and fit for everyone.

John Mason: The Holocaust Educational Trust makes it clear that the people who suffered during the holocaust included gays, blacks and Roma Gypsies as well as, overwhelmingly, Jews. I must admit that I did not know much about the trust until I was invited to go last September to Auschwitz-Birkenau with a group of Glasgow pupils, along with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and some journalists. It has already been observed that these journeys involve a day of preparation before the visit itself, and a debriefing and school projects afterwards.
	Different things affect different people individually on these visits. For one of the journalists, what struck him was the shoes. He told us that he had a little girl, and he realised that some of those shoes would have fitted her. I was challenged in a number of ways. One related to the position of the Roma Gypsies in our society today. They are a group that some people really despise and would not want living next to them. The visit brought it home to me that those feelings are continuing today and are real.
	The physical aspect of the visit that struck me was the railway. Some Members will know that I am a fan of railways and that I like travelling by train. Clearly, railways are used sometimes for good things and sometimes for bad things, but to see the railway in the Birkenau camp, which had been specifically built to kill people, struck me as particularly awful. It was built to get the Hungarian Jews into the camps as quickly as possible, quite late in the war. The last thing I did that day was to walk right along the track back to the famous gate.
	I have visited other sites that I have found moving, including Terezin, near Prague. It was meant to be a transit camp, but 33,000 people died there, including prisoners of war, which should not have happened. In Israel, I visited Yad Vashem. The children's memorial there is a dark place with mirrors and a few lights, and the names of the children who died in the holocaust are read out. I found that quite overwhelming. It is also possible to visit ghettos and synagogues in other towns.
	The Jews were not the sole victims of the holocaust, but they were largely so. The Holocaust Educational Trust is very good at reminding us that we should oppose all discrimination against all minorities and promote understanding and good relationships. It was a good by-product of our visit to see the children from some very well-off private schools in Glasgow mixing with children from ordinary state schools and, hopefully, understanding each other.
	The Jews have suffered a lot, historically. Back in biblical times, they were treated as slaves in Egypt. They were expelled from Rome during the Roman empire. In 1290, England became the first European country to expel the Jews, and that lasted until 1656. Clearly, I am not a fan of Edward I, for a number of reasons. It was interesting that he expelled the Jews, largely for financial reasons, and that Cromwell brought them back for similar reasons. They were expelled from Spain in 1492, and from Portugal in 1497. It has been said that Scotland is the only European country not to have exercised state persecution of Jews, although there was not a large Jewish population there in the past. Also, I went to the cinema recently with a Jewish friend, and youngsters in the cinema were making anti-Jewish comments, so none of us is exempt from that kind of thing.
	As time is limited I shall not go into great detail, but I want to raise the question of why the Jews are the subject of so much hatred historically. There are some superficial reasons such as that the Jews killed Jesus, but, fairly obviously, Jesus was Jewish, all Jesus's early followers were Jewish, and the whole early Christian Church was Jewish. One can say that gentiles such as me who follow the Christian faith are the second-rate believers, and the Jewish ones are the first-rate believers.
	What are the lessons to be learned from the holocaust? One is that we need to be peacemakers, not just peacekeepers. As previous speakers have mentioned, it is difficult to separate the Jews from Israel. Clearly, some Jews are opposed to the current existence of Israel, and many are opposed to particular policies of the Israeli Government. I fear that for some people being anti-Israel on the surface is a cover for being anti-Jewish underneath. Among committed Christians, there are those who are pro-Arab, pro-Palestine and anti-Israel, and others who are strongly pro-Israel and seem blind to its failings.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Mason: Another Member wishes to speak, so I will have to carry on.
	On the home front, we need to learn how to treat minorities-including the Jewish one-and the poor. That is a measure of a civilised country. The Equality Bill is important in that regard, and I welcome its protection of the disabled, of gay people and of other groups. However, it is necessary to be careful about how the Bill addresses religious matters. On the foreign front, the lesson to be learned is how to deal with the middle east. It is easy to be a strident supporter of one side or the other, but surely one role for this country is to be a peacemaker in the middle east.

John Mann: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. In that context, I want to place on record all our thanks for the work of Elliot Conway, who has just moved on to greater and better things, having been for a number of years an effective director of the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism. In the past year, I have also chaired the international parliamentary coalition against anti-Semitism. Yesterday, Italy commenced a comparable inquiry to that held by the House on a cross-party basis three years ago, and Canada has also held a cross-party inquiry throughout this week. The cross-party nature of the work and some of the successes achieved have been demonstrated by today's debate. I trust that all parties will ensure that, whatever decisions are made on budgets, such essential work is red-circled at a minimum, in each and every year of the next Parliament.
	I also urge those on the Front Benches to consider how they can assist the excellent work of Beth Shalom, the only bespoke holocaust centre in this country, which has sadly had to make some staff redundant in recent times. Local authorities have been unwilling to pay what I would deem an appropriate charge to participate in such educational activities. Engagement by Government and Opposition with James Smith and the team at that centre would be beneficial. In these times of austerity, it is important that such work is not cut back but expanded. There is a role for temporary Government assistance to keep that good work going at the same strength.
	I echo the sentiments and thanks expressed to the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Community Security Trust, Stephen Smith and his team, and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust committee. I congratulate both sides of the House on the cross-party alliance on the matter during this Parliament. It has been a model for other Parliaments across the world to take forward such work. I want to suggest some other ways in which we can take the work forward.
	In 2012, Olympic year, we should do something, whether in connection with Holocaust memorial day or in some other way, to look at the contribution of Britain in 1948, why Britain was chosen to host the Olympics, and how racism and the holocaust link to the history of the Olympics. There is a British angle, not least in relation to holocaust survivors in this country who became Olympians, that is a worthy subject for education. I suggest that to the Government and Opposition parties as an agenda item for the next two years.
	Just before the Olympics, the Euro 2012 championship will take place in Poland and Ukraine. I do not have the necessary time to go into some of the issues in eastern Europe and the rewriting of history led by academics in particular-the rebalancing of history, as some of them call it-but it is fundamentally worrying. If possible, on a cross-party basis, we should engage their Parliaments on the issue. That football championship, in which all four home countries aspire to participate if they are successful in qualifying-doubtless some will, not least England-gives an opportunity for such engagement. It is vital that we take that opportunity.
	We also need to engage the European Union as an institution in holocaust education. Given some of the progress of the past 10 years, since the initiatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), backed by others, we have something to sing about. We can do more at the European level. We should engage the European Union, the new European Parliament and Commission, and Britain should take a lead in the Council of Ministers in getting proper resource and thought and more research at a European level and across nations. That will allow holocaust education and the lessons of the holocaust to permeate a wider range of countries. That is our responsibility as British parliamentarians as well as good Europeans, and I recommend that to those on both Front Benches.
	On days such as yesterday, we reflect on the past-
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A).
	 Sitting suspended (Standing Order No. 20).

Leeds City Council Bill

Third Reading

Madam Deputy Speaker: It may be helpful if I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Leeds City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill are virtually identical, and I think it will therefore be for the convenience of the House if the Bills are debated together.

Paul Truswell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I do not intend to detain the House with a very long speech. I hope that even the most assiduous students of the Bill will now be satisfied that it addresses a major abuse of the peddling laws in Leeds, while not affecting the ability of genuine pedlars to continue to ply their trade.
	In a previous debate, I gave the example of one of my constituents who ran a stall in the centre of Leeds. He employed staff, had a street trading licence and paid taxes and business rates. His business and staff were nearly driven to the wall by a competitor who abused legislation on peddling by setting up in direct competition. Of course, he was able to do so without paying any of the overheads of my constituent. The Bill is intended to give the authorities in Leeds the opportunity to prevent such abuses from occurring while allowing genuine pedlars who are mobile and can carry their wares around with them to continue to trade unaffected.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who made a commendably brief speech. The reason why I will be similarly brief is that when Leeds city council realised that I and a number of other Members were concerned about the contents of clause 5, it sought discussions. As a result of those discussions, the clause was amended significantly to the form in which we see it today. That form means that pedlars will be able to continue to act in Leeds city centre provided that they do not have goods anywhere other than immediately about their person. That means that they cannot have goods in a container or, particularly, in a trolley.
	When I had my discussions with council officers from both Leeds and Reading, it became apparent that the real mischief that they wanted dealt with was people with large trolleys blocking up the town centre. They showed me photographs, which I looked at, and I thought that they had made a strong case. The current law means that before Bills are brought forward to restrict the rights of pedlars, the Government require a strong case to be made justifying them. I took the view that that case had been made out in Leeds and Reading, so I said that if the required amendments were made-we discussed the detail of those amendments, which are now incorporated in clause 5 of the Leeds Bill and a similar clause of the Reading Bill-I would allow the Bills an easy passage through the House. We have now reached Third Reading, and after the Bills get their Third Reading shortly, they will go to the other place.
	I want briefly to set out what I want to happen in the other place because I hope that the Bills will be amended further. I know that pedlars also hope that that will happen. It is appropriate to deal with the Leeds City Council Bill first because Mr. Marks, one of the founding fathers of Marks and Spencer, was originally a pedlar in Leeds. There is an argument about whether he or his father was a pedlar, but in any case, if the father was a pedlar, the son may have been a hawker-the two categories are the same under the Bill. My hon. Friends and I have been keen to ensure that the Bill's ambit and application are reasonable and proportionate.
	Clause 4 deals with provision of services. I do not invite the Minister to make a long speech, but I hope that he can explain the interaction between the services directive and clause 4 and the equivalent provision in the Reading Borough Council Bill. There has been much uncertainty after the implementation of the services directive at the end of last year. Although I spoke about the subject in some detail in an earlier debate, a closure motion was unfortunately moved, which meant that the Minister was unable to comment-I am sure that he was itching to do so. I therefore hope that if he comments on nothing else, he deals with that matter because it would be helpful to ventilate the information in the public arena and enable people to have a better understanding of what is happening.
	Clause 5 and the equivalent in the Reading Borough Council Bill do not permit trading by pedlars with any wheeled vehicle, not even one that is no greater than 1 cubic metre in capacity. In that respect, the Bill and the Reading measure are different from the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill. Following an opposed Committee hearing, the latter Bills were amended to allow pedlars to have with them a wheeled vehicle no greater than 1 cubic metre in capacity. I know that some pedlars would like a similar amendment to be made in another place to the measure that we are discussing.
	Clause 6 deals with seizure. The Bill and the Reading Bill require only
	"reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed"
	an offence before enabling an officer or a constable to seize goods. I am pleased that the equivalent provisions in the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills will be amended later this afternoon by amendments that I tabled and that have been conceded by the Bills' sponsors to change the necessity for mere "suspecting" to a requirement for "reasonable grounds" for belief. A whole series of amendments were tabled and I hope that, when the Leeds and Reading Bills reach the other place, they will be amended in a similar fashion.
	In respect of clause 7, "Seizure of perishable items", the Leeds City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill are different from the Manchester City Council Bill and the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. The clause allows seizure of perishable items, which is not allowed under the Manchester and Bournemouth measures. I hope that that aspect of those Bills will be looked at in the other place.
	I hope that similar amendments will be made to clause 8 of the Leeds City Council Bill, "Return and disposal of seized items", as are going to be made to the Bournemouth and Manchester Bills.
	We then come to clause 10, "Compensation where seizure unlawful". Manchester and Bournemouth are going to concede that it is reasonable to exclude the provision that means that goods can continue to be held even following acquittal, if there is an appeal-in other words, an appeal for judicial review. I took the view that the measure was rather oppressive and I am pleased that it is the subject of an amendment that will be accepted by Manchester and Bournemouth councils. I hope that the Leeds and Reading provisions will be amended in that respect when they reach the other place.
	Probably the most significant concessions to be made later today by Bournemouth and Manchester relate to the fixed penalty regime, which is contained in clauses 11 to 14 in the Leeds City Council Bill and clauses 12 to 15 of the Reading Borough Council Bill. I tabled a lot of amendments to the equivalent provisions in the Bournemouth and Manchester Bills, and I am delighted that their promoters have told me that they intend to accept my proposals, which will result in the removal of all clauses relating to fixed penalties. I hope that similar amendments to remove the fixed penalty regime from the Leeds and Reading measures will be made when they reach the other place.
	In clause 16, "Provision of information to authorised officer", the Leeds City Council Bill contains a power that goes beyond those in the Manchester and Bournemouth measures. Because that is a distinct provision of the Reading Borough Council Bill and the Leeds City Council Bill, I hope it will be subject to detailed scrutiny in the other place.
	The Leeds City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill are indeed pretty similar, but there are two differences. The latter deals with touting. The reasons for that have been explained to me by Reading borough council, but because it is a unique provision, I hope it will be the subject of detailed scrutiny when it reaches the other place. The same goes for clause 18 of that Bill, "Powers of community support officers", in relation to fixed penalties.
	I think there is going to be quite a lot of work for the other place in respect of the four Bills. They came to the House without having any petitions against them, but I am sure there will be petitions against them in the other place. I hope that as a result, there will be the usual detailed consideration of their contents.
	What is so important about this-it is also why I am so pleased that the Leeds and Reading measures are at the top of our agenda today-is that both councils have negotiated with Members of the House who had concerns about the contents of the Bills.

Humfrey Malins: I remember sitting on the Opposed Bill Committee to discuss the Bournemouth Bill some months ago. During the course of that Committee, some of us sought to reach a fair compromise that looked after the interests of genuine pedlars, and from what my hon. Friend is saying, it appears that such a compromise has been reached.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that many genuine pedlars remain concerned about aspects of these two Bills, and some have suggested to me that without the ability to take some of their goods with them in a wheeled trolley or receptacle, even if limited to 1 cubic metre in size, their ability to operate will be significantly reduced. However, I accept that we should concentrate not on reaching the perfect solution, but on trying to find a reasonable compromise.

Andrew Murrison: It is great that a compromise has been brokered. However, my hon. Friend referred to all the work that was done in the other place. Does he share my concern that there will be a lot of work for this place if some of the 410 local authorities are tempted to bring forward private Bills to deal with their local issues? Does he agree that we must do something to ensure that we have a form of legislation that will be permissive, to allow-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide. We are now on the Third Reading of these two Bills. Whatever happens in the future will have to be dealt with then.

Christopher Chope: The difficulty of reaching this stage on these Bills has deterred many other councils from bringing forward Bills that have not been thought through. I am sure that ultimately we will need a national solution, because otherwise it will take up an enormous amount of the time of hon. Members. There are other issues that we need to address.

Edward Leigh: There was a recent case of a pedlar who was prosecuted because she had two milk trolleys stuck together. What would be the effect of the Bills on this lady? Would she be able to carry on trading?

Christopher Chope: If she had two milk trolleys stuck together and sought to peddle in the areas covered by these two Bills, she would not be able to claim that she was operating lawfully as a pedlar. If my hon. Friend had seen some of the pictures from the city centres in Leeds and Reading, he would understand why I accepted the amendments. The issue of permissible trolley size can be revisited in the other place, and I am sure that petitioners will attempt to make their lordships take a different view. I thought that the amendments to clause 5 of the Bills was a substantial step forward for pedlars' rights, compared with the highly restrictive regime that was originally included. That is why I accepted the amendments. The price that I have had to pay for doing so, on behalf of the pedlar community, is undertaking not to obstruct further the progress of the Bills through this House. I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of others, but I hope that my hon. Friend will respect that agreement so that these Bills receive a Third Reading. I hope that the reservations that he understandably still has can be resolved in the other place.

Edward Leigh: So is my hon. Friend telling me that under the Pedlars Act 1871, not only would Mrs. Crofts, the woman who was prosecuted, have had to approach people, but she would have had to be carrying the stuff? Is that right?

Christopher Chope: Yes, she would have had to be carrying the goods on her person. I do not know what the goods were, but she could have had them in a tray, up her sleeves, in her pockets-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some latitude, but we are now straying rather wide of the Third Reading of the two Bills.

Christopher Chope: The last thing that I want to do is be led astray by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). If more such Bills are brought before the House, he will have a chance to make similar points about them. However, for now let me say that I am content that the Bills that we are discussing should receive a Third Reading.

Philip Davies: I certainly do not intend to detain the House for long, but I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has done a sterling job on behalf of pedlars in this country. Whatever one's view happens to be on the merits or otherwise of the Bills that we are discussing, I am sure that everybody would commend him on how he has argued his case and won concessions as a result. I am full of admiration for what he has done.
	Because of my regard and respect for my hon. Friend, I will certainly follow what he said about the further progress of the Leeds City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill. In many respects he is a very reasonable man; in fact, one could argue that on those two Bills he is perhaps far too reasonable a man. I am still concerned about a number of aspects of the Bills, some of which he touched on. He raised an important point about whether clause 4 falls within European directives that have been introduced since the Bills were brought forward. Like him, I await the Minister's response on that.

Kevin Brennan: I would be more inclined to give that if I felt that there was some progress being made-as I felt there was a few moments ago-and if that continued.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the Minister, but I hope that he will allow me to go through one or two other concerns that I happen to have about the Bills. Not only have my concerns been recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in our various debates on the issues, but in some cases they have been recognised by the promoters of these Bills and some of the others that we might come to discuss later.
	I want to touch on the issue of fixed penalty notices, which are covered by clauses 11 to 15 of the Leeds City Council Bill. I remain nervous at the prospect of council officers having the power under the Bill to serve fixed penalty notices on people. It is perfectly clear from our debates that the local authorities concerned simply do not want pedlars in their cities. For council officers representing cities that clearly do not want them there under any circumstances to have the power to issue fixed penalty notices without, in my opinion, particularly strong safeguards is dangerous. We also face the ludicrous situation whereby clause 13 allows the council to fix the level of the fixed penalty notice. On the one hand we are giving the council a blank cheque to set the notice at a level that it feels is appropriate, whereas clause 14 pulls back from that and gives the Secretary of State reserve powers to reduce that fixed penalty notice where he considers it to be excessive. Why the Bill says that is beyond me. The Secretary of State must know what level he would consider excessive, so, rather than go through a ridiculous rigmarole whereby a council sets a fixed penalty, only for the Secretary of State to decide that it is excessive, why can we not set the actual amount in the Bill so that we all know where we stand? It seems utterly ludicrous that we cannot do that.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case in pointing out why the provisions relating to fixed penalties in the two Bills are unreasonable, oppressive and disproportionate. The good news is that the concerns relating to the fixed penalty provisions in the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill have been accepted by the promoters of those Bills, albeit late in the day. We can only hope that, when these two Bills get to the other place, their promoters will accept that these provisions should be removed. We could not have done what we did without tabling amendments. Having reached that agreement, however, I was unable to table amendments on Report because I might have been accused of delaying the progress of these two Bills.

Philip Davies: I accept that. I understand my hon. Friend's position on this, but I return to the point I made earlier: I think that he is being far too reasonable about these Bills.
	The fixed penalty is supposed to be set at a reasonable level to cover the costs incurred by the local authority in issuing it. Clause 15, however, deals with how a surplus in an authority's accounts may be spent or applied. If a fixed penalty were set at a level that only covered costs, we should not even be talking about a surplus in the accounts. I worry, when I see such provisions in a Bill, where they might lead to. Perhaps the fixed penalties would end up being a money-raising measure for the local authority.
	I want to concentrate on clause 4 of the Reading Borough Council Bill, which relates to ticket touting. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, recently carried out an inquiry into ticket touting. I cannot see what a Bill about pedlars has to do with ticket touting.

Christopher Chope: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but if he looks at the Bill, he will see that it is clause 11 that deals with ticket touting.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is entirely right.
	I do not understand what ticket touting has to do with pedlars; these are, in many cases, separate issues. That point was conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) when we debated the Canterbury City Council Bill. Indeed, that Bill's promoters agreed that the inclusion of such a provision was muddying the waters, and they kindly removed the relevant clause. However, the Reading Bill still contains such a clause. I perfectly understand the points that have been made about events such as the Reading festival-I know that that is a big event-but a Bill about pedlars should not be interfering in the wider issue of ticket touting.
	As the Select Committee found, the secondary market for the sale of tickets is a perfectly legitimate market; it has never been considered otherwise. No one in this country has ever been taken to court because of it. One court case took place in Australia, and the ticket tout won. The Office of Fair Trading made it clear in its evidence to the Select Committee that the secondary market for tickets works in the best interests of the consumer. It does so because people who buy a ticket for an event that they subsequently cannot attend often find that they cannot get a refund. The promoters of events often do not make provision for refunds. People who find subsequently that they cannot go to the event are therefore left with a ticket that they cannot sell on, and that they cannot give back to the promoter, who will not refund them. They have no option but to sell it to someone else, to get their money back or even make a profit. That is in the interests of people in Reading, who want to go to the Reading festival but subsequently find that they cannot.
	Equally, people who were not sure whether they could go to the Reading festival when the tickets were issued for sale, and therefore did not buy a ticket, but then found that they could go to the event, would be unable, without a secondary market, to exercise their choice-nobody forces them to do it-to pay a perhaps inflated price at a later date.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that the potency of his argument can be developed in another place, particularly if some of the people engaged in such activities petition against the Bill when it reaches the other place shortly?

Philip Davies: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but we might be in the ridiculous situation-I will happily give way to him if he can convince me otherwise-whereby a secondary market for tickets to the Reading festival, which is of interest to people across the country and perhaps even internationally, is available to people everywhere, including on the internet, except Reading. It seems perverse that the Bill's promoter should want to deny choice to the people of Reading, while allowing people in the rest of the country, and perhaps further afield, the opportunity to exercise such choice. Why should a Bill that is supposed to deal with peddling affect the legitimate secondary market, which works in the best interest of the consumer?
	I accept the advice of my hon. Friend that such matters should not be delayed unnecessarily. I hope that the grave concerns that I have raised will be addressed in the other place, because the Bills will be better for the cities and towns concerned if such points are taken heed of. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for extracting the concessions that he has, but I wish that he had managed to extract further concessions.

Edward Leigh: I for one, I think along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Davies), am pleased that the Reading Borough Council Bill provides in clause 15 for the Secretary of State to have reserve powers in respect of the levels of fixed penalties. We look forward shortly to hear the Minister's comments, because we want councils to treat their powers circumspectly and to remember that pedlars often trade on a very small scale. The explanatory memorandum to the Reading Borough Council Bill states that clause 14
	"provides that the Council must fix the levels of fixed penalties"-
	that is fine; I am sure we can trust Reading borough council to be circumspect. It continues:
	"In doing so the council must have regard to the reasonable costs incurred by them in administering the street trading regime under Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act, the costs of enforcing the provisions of Schedule 4 and the administration and enforcement costs under Clause 11."
	What worries me is that if we take into account all those costs, the council could argue that the cost of enforcing the regime to deal with pedlars is heavy. I do not want councils who are under pressure regarding their spending to level fixed penalties that will drive these people out of the market.
	I have referred to Mrs Crofts, who trades in south Yorkshire and around the country. Although she was peddling in a small way, with two milk floats joined together, when she was sentenced the magistrates took into account that she had to pay a £110,000 confiscation order issued by Swansea Crown court in 2007 for possessing goods with false trademarks. I cannot believe that such a lady could have such property and I can only assume that that fine was a maximum amount. I only mention this case to show that the Secretary of State must be very circumspect in keeping an eye on these borough councils to ensure that they are not imposing too large a fine on these people. This lady was trading from two milk trolleys stuck together and, rather pathetically, she said after the court case that she would continue to trade but would be downsizing. How much more pathetic can you get?
	When councils implement clause 14, they must have regard to people like Robert Edwards, who has a licence under the Pedlars Act 1871 and sells his own poetry. Apparently not many people are interested in buying his poetry. In 15 months on the road, he has sold 750 books but most were through established retail bookshops. His best day ever, he has said, was when he sold seven. This chap is hardly a great-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. Perhaps he would now confine his remarks to the Third Reading of the two Bills.

Edward Leigh: I am very happy to do so. I just wanted to quote those two examples to try to convince the Minister, who I think will not need any convincing, to reassure us that he will use his reserved powers under clause 15 to ensure that when fines are imposed, they are at a low level so that this traditional activity, which is dying out, will carry on in the country.

Kevin Brennan: The House is aware that, prompted by the number of local authorities seeking these additional powers contained in the two Bills, we are undertaking research to look at the perceptions and applications of the national and local regimes. We are now consulting. The consultation period will come to an end on 12 February and we will publish the Government's response in due course.
	In the light of the questions about the service directive, I can say that, in effect, it limits authorisation schemes for service providers so as not unduly to limit cross-border provision of services. It is for local authorities to be able to justify any such authorisation schemes under the terms of the directive and the Department has drawn the attention of local authorities to this.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We all have to take our turn in the Opposition Business team in dealing with these private Bills, which have had a long genesis in terms of getting through the House. As long ago as 12 June 2008, I argued from the Dispatch Box that we should have a national review of this whole subject, so I am delighted to hear today from the Minister that we will have the results of such a review by the end of February. He then said that he would consider those and in due course we would have a result. Does he think "in due course" is likely to be before the general election or not?

Kevin Brennan: For the sake of clarity, what I said was that it will conclude on 12 February and then in due course the Government will report-"in due course" means exactly that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We can conclude from that that "in due course" probably means after the general election, so, with a bit of luck, it will be a Conservative Government who will have to consider these matters. We will do just that; we will see whether this procedure is satisfactory and what we can do on a more national basis.
	I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that such good progress has been made that he now feels able to support a Third Reading, although I was careful to note what he said about the amount of work that needs to be done in the other place.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend used the word "support", but I would prefer to be quoted as saying that I was "allowing progress".

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend speaks clearly for himself, but I do not think he would demur from the second part of my comment, which was that there is still a lot of work to be done in the other place. In "allowing" his support for these Third Readings today, I hope that he will provide every possible assistance to the other place to ensure that these Bills get on to the statute book. I say that because, as the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said, his local authority and other authorities have spent a great deal of time and resources in trying to achieve that aim. It is incumbent on both Houses to try to make progress and get the Bills on to the statute book.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has managed to secure some useful amendments, which I shall discuss briefly: the provision in clause 5 about pedlars having goods about their person does mean that they cannot have vast great floats, which take up space and cause a nuisance; the Minister has made it clear how the interactivity between the services directive and the provision of services by pedlars is supposed to work; we have had a great deal of debate about clause 6 and about the issue of seizure, particularly the seizure of perishable goods, as set out in clauses 7 and 8; and our long debates seem to have produced eminently sensible amendments to clause 10(1)(ii) in respect of goods held on acquittal. They are proportionate and reasonable, they are not oppressive and my hon. Friend has done the promoters of the Bill a favour in securing such amendments. I also agree with him about the apparent inconsistencies in the Bills about the fixed penalties, and it would have been much more sensible to have specified a maximum level of fine in clauses 11 to 14, even if local authorities could then set a level below that. It would be up to them to use their discretion, according to the severity of the problem that they face in their local area, to determine what level of fine to set.
	I was initially opposed to the appointment of community support officers-when they were proposed by this Government I thought that they were about getting policing on the cheap-but I must say that this is one of the very few examples of when the Government have introduced something and I have completely changed my mind about it. These officers do a great job of work in their localities and they provide a lot of reassurance for the public by their visibility. The amendments of their powers that my hon. Friend has managed to secure in the Bill in respect of requiring information from those who might have committed an offence is also of benefit.
	With those few words, I hope that the House will proceed to support the Third Reading of these two Bills and that we can move on to the other Bills that we have to discuss. I also hope that the other place will give a fair wind to the Bills, so that we can get them on the statute book.

John Thurso: It is with considerable interest, if not exactly unalloyed pleasure, that I have followed the proceedings on these Bills over a number of afternoons. Among other things, that has had the unintended consequence that at a recent dinner party I attended I was able to speak at length and depth on the subject of pedlary, much to the dismay of the other guests. Notwithstanding that, the protagonists have clearly arrived at a workable, if not necessarily amicable, truce. In that regard, it would be quite wrong of me or anybody else to stand in the way of this Bill's further progress and I hope that the House accords it a Third Reading.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In keeping with the previous debate on these Bills, it will be for the convenience of the House if certain amendments relating to the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] be debated together with those relating to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords].
	 Amendment proposed (21 January): 4- (Mr. Chope.)
	 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking amendments 5 and 6 to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] and amendments 6, 7 and 8 to the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords].

Christopher Chope: We were debating this amendment a week ago and I was in the process of summing up the debate. I am pleased to say that since I sat down last week an important conversation has taken place between myself, Bournemouth borough council and Manchester city council about these two Bills. What has effectively come out of that conversation is that Bournemouth borough council and Manchester city council realise that the Bills go far too far and they are prepared to concede a series of significant and substantial amendments and concessions.
	Although I know there will still be people, particularly in the pedlar community, who think that those concessions do not go far enough, I have taken the view that as I am in a position of relative weakness-as reflected in the votes on these issues, where I rarely got more than a dozen of my Back-Bench colleagues to support the case I put forward-reaching a compromise that involves significant concessions, which could of course have been made much earlier or even several years ago, is a worthwhile achievement. I commend the flexibility of both Bournemouth borough council and Manchester city council in agreeing to those concessions, even at this late stage. One can imagine that people become rather entrenched and say, "If I give ground now, I shall look like a weakling."

Edward Leigh: rose-

Christopher Chope: I think that my hon. Friend thinks I am a weakling for having conceded so much on the previous two Bills.

Edward Leigh: No, of course I do not think that. I am just a humble spear-carrier in the pedlar campaign and my hon. Friend is the general. I merely want a reassurance that, having obtained these concessions, he can convince us that pedlary as we have understood it since 1871 will carry on. He has unfurled the banner on behalf of a community who had no other support. Before we withdraw from our position, we want the reassurance of our hon. Friend and nobody else.

Christopher Chope: I believe that lawful pedlary has now been recognised across the House as something worth while that should be allowed to continue. The Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs is now conducting a consultation on possible changes. My hon. Friend should look at that consultation to see whether he wishes to make a submission to it.

Tobias Ellwood: I want to add a sense of reality to what my hon. Friend is saying. The introduction of these Bills was never designed to challenge genuine pedlars, but to put the relationship between genuine pedlars and street traders into perspective. Illegal pedlars were giving a bad name to the genuine pedlars whom my hon. Friend and his entourage have been trying to support, and I want to make it very clear that we had the genuine pedlars in mind when drafting the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has referred to what he describes as my "entourage", so perhaps this is the moment for me to thank all those who have assiduously supported these debates over the past months and years. We can now claim that we have been able to concentrate minds and achieve significant concessions.
	This is the lead Bill, and I believe that what has come out of our debates is that the Government set up an inquiry, which they were never going to do otherwise. They then went out to consultation, and have now done so again. We are promised that, when the consultation's results are known in due course, there will be a prospect of further, national legislation.
	I do not know what will happen with that, but the best thing is that we are going to get a code of guidance. A draft code has been published with the consultation: if that were widely disseminated, it would bring an enormous amount of clarity to the issue, both for pedlars and those who must enforce the law as it stands.
	We will come in due course to the amendments that have been accepted. Because of the agreement that has been reached and the concessions that have been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 32.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we are taking amendments 33 to 42, 44 to 47, 49 to 55 and 57 to 70 to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], and amendments 35, 36 to 45, 47 to 50, 52 to 58 and 60 to 73 to the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords].

Christopher Chope: These groups of amendments deal with the powers that the Bills give to authorised officers and police officers to seize goods. Previous private Bills dealing with street trading have granted powers of seizure, but for the first time the Bills as currently drafted allow a power to be exercised not just when there is a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed, but when there is "a reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed.
	Without going into great detail, a case decided in the House of Lords shows that the meaning of "a reasonable suspicion" effectively means that the person exercising that view has absolute discretion in the matter. A similar power under terrorism legislation is now being used to arrest people. Although I am not going to get into that, I am sure that, even in their most concerned moments, my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) would never have wanted to equate unlawful street traders with terrorists.

Edward Leigh: Does my hon. Friend remember the sus laws that obtained when we were young barristers together? There was a great campaign to remove them because it was felt that they gave the police far too much power to arrest people, often from ethnic minorities, simply on suspicion. Can he assure me that we are in no way creating powers parallel to the old-fashioned sus laws that we swept away in the late 1980s?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which is why I tabled the amendments and why I am delighted that amendments 32, 33, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 55, which deals with the related subject of the recovery of storage costs, and 69, which deals with the payment of compensation on acquittal, have been accepted by the Bill's promoters. Those amendments are an important package that mean there will be less reason for pedlars and street traders to think they are an oppressed minority against which prejudiced people can exercise draconian powers. My hon. Friend is quite right to remind us of the old sus laws. If people, on mere grounds of suspicion, arrest others or take away their goods, it creates an unpleasant atmosphere, which is why I am enthusiastic about this group of amendments and why I am delighted that at this late stage Bournemouth and, indeed, Manchester are prepared to accept my proposals.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for whittling the 81 amendments he introduced last week down to a mere 14, which he and I are both happy to add to the Bill. For the record, may I confirm that they include amendments 32, 33, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 55 and 69? With that, I shall conclude, as I would like to make progress so that we can clear this final hurdle.

Tony Lloyd: The group of amendments on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill parallels a similar group of amendments to the Manchester City Council Bill, which we shall discuss later. In this common debate, however, it would probably be helpful if I put on the record, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has done for the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, the fact that the amendments the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has tabled to the Manchester City Council Bill are acceptable to the city of Manchester.
	It may be helpful for the hon. Gentleman's future career as the champion-indeed, the general-of the pedlars campaign if I tell him that Manchester is not necessarily happy with the amendments. He has gained concessions from the city of Manchester-and, I think, from the town of Bournemouth-through parliamentary exchanges, because that is how the business of the House is conducted and how the legislation of the nation is made: in the spirit of seeking acceptable compromises. It is not necessarily about allowing anyone to think they have got what they want, but about allowing us all to think that we can make progress in controlling the activities of non-legitimate pedlars, while making sure, hopefully, that there is space for legitimate pedlars to trade.
	The hon. Gentleman can put in his election manifesto the fact that Government Members congratulated him on his campaign. He has certainly achieved something in securing amendments to the Bills. With that, may I, too, say that I am happy to support his amendments to the Manchester City Council Bill?

Christopher Chope: I shall respond briefly to the generous comments of hon. Members. It is a pity that we have had to deal with this in such a formal way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am going to ask my hon. Friend a question that I was going to ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). Why, considering that so many hours have been spent on debate in the House, does my hon. Friend think it has taken so long to secure basic, sensible concessions? If they had been granted many months, if not years, ago, the Bills would be on the statute book by now. Does he think there are any lessons to be learned for authorities considering similar Bills with similar amendments?

Christopher Chope: The lessons that Leeds and Reading learned when they introduced their Bills was that if a reasonable concession could be made to enable them to make progress, it was probably sensible to make it. It is a pity that the two Bills we are considering were introduced in the other place, and were then subject to quite a lot of comment there. They were the subject of petitions in the House, and proceeded to an opposed Bill Committee. That Committee imposed a number of amendments on clause 5 which, although they are far from perfect, we discussed last Thursday. That process cost time and money-leading counsel was engaged. It would have been much better had there been some forum in which we could have tried to find a way through.
	"Better late than never" is a good expression. We are where we are, but as I said to a wider audience on the radio programme last week, somebody who is representing a minority opinion in the House has relatively little ability to influence things, other than by appealing for reason and using the weapon of delay. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for facilitating the concentrating of minds by making it clear that we were prepared to deploy the weapon of parliamentary delay.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes an important constitutional point. Better Bills are emerging because it is still possible for private Members to delay Bills and have some influence. That does not happen with Government Bills at all. It happens in the United States Senate, for instance, which I have been reading about-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows he is straying wide of the Bill. I therefore ask Mr. Christopher Chope to conclude his remarks.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for his contribution, however wide-ranging it might be.
	Peace has broken out. Everybody recognises there is no point in being cussed and intransigent. It was with sadness that I read the obituary of our late hon. Friend Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, which made it clear that he took cussedness to an extreme, but as a result of that, he was able to achieve change in the House that would not otherwise have been possible. He knew the procedures of the House inside out. My recommendation to anybody who enters the House after the next general election is that the first thing they should do is concentrate on procedure. Then they will be ably qualified as legislators in due course.
	 Amendment 32 agreed to.
	 Amendments made: 33, 44, 45, 49 to 51, 55 and 69 .-(Mr. Chope.)

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 75.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendments 76 to 78, 71 to 73 and 79 to 81.

Christopher Chope: Amendment 75 would remove clause 4. The other amendments relate to clauses 10 to 14. Some would remove all those clauses in toto, and some are more modest, aiming to taking out the most toxic part of those clauses. I am delighted that, in an e-mail sent to me first thing this morning, the promoters of the two Bills expressed their agreement to amendments 75, 77, 78, 80 and 81, which would, in effect, remove clauses 10 to 14 from the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the equivalent clauses from the Manchester City Council Bill. Those clauses cover three full pages of the Bill's 10 as printed. To remove three pages at one stroke represents pretty good progress as far as I am concerned, so I am very grateful to the Bills' sponsors, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), for conceding those amendments, which will result in a better and fairer Bill.
	I am sure that it has not escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the consequence of removing clauses 10 to 14 is that the references to fixed penalties in clauses 7 and 9 will need to be amended in due course with technical and consequential amendments. We do not have such amendments on the amendment paper today, and it is not appropriate to try to move manuscript amendments, but I understand that it will be possible to make those consequential amendments when the Bills are considered in the other place.
	The promoters of the Bill have also made it clear to me that, in clarifying the contents of the Bill, those amendments in the other place will include the amendment that I previously sought to make to clause 5 by adding to "another person" the phrase "trading with the authority of a pedlars' certificate", so that the provision is clearer. Everybody agrees that that is the intention of the clause, but it will be better when, in the House of Lords, it is technically amended to make that objective clear.
	We have made enormous progress over a short space of time-since the early hours of this morning when my hard-working secretary said at five minutes past 8 that she had been in receipt of an e-mail. Since then I have been in discussions about the implications of the amendments. I have spoken to a significant pedlar, the agents for the promoters, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, and I must put on the record that, notwithstanding these amendments, the pedlar to whom I spoke still feels that there is a venality in the Bills. However, I am sure that he would be the first to concede that we are making progress by removing these clauses.

Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I am sorry that he was not here earlier for the Reading Borough Council Bill. However, I understand that a significant funeral service took place today in Reading, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), from the other half of Reading, could not be present. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was at the same event, but I am happy to give way to him.

Martin Salter: I can confirm that there was a tragic funeral, which both I and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) had to go to. I am delighted that the Reading Borough Council Bill's passage has been eased and that an accommodation has been found, but many of us have spent an inordinate amount of our lives-which we will not get back again-on the objections of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He appears to base a lot of what he says on a conversation with a single significant pedlar, so will he confirm the communications that he has had with the pedlar community as a whole? I am confused as to why we have had to spend so much time on these measures.

Christopher Chope: The significant pedlar to whom I spoke today is the pedlar who petitioned against these two Bills, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I got my priorities right in speaking to that person first. However, I have actually spoken to quite a lot of pedlars. I shall not embarrass myself or the House by reading out the glowing tributes that I have received from various pedlars for the efforts that I have made on their behalf, but I must assure the hon. Gentleman that I have quite a lot of contacts in the pedlar community.
	Indeed, one of the good things that has come out of this whole series of Bills is that pedlars are now much better organised. They have their own website-I think it is called pedlarsinfo.co.uk. That means that the pedlar community is now able to keep in contact with what is happening.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is complaining that I am taking too long to respond to his intervention, for which I apologise. Of course, he will know that some pedlars have watches all the way up their arm and can offer them for sale.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was helped by the fact that I was somewhat distracted; he has therefore been given more leeway than he would otherwise have had. I am sure that he will now wish to concentrate his remarks on the group of amendments under consideration.

Christopher Chope: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your customary indulgence. I will say no more than I have already said. I commend this major group of amendments to the House.
	 Amendment 75 agreed to.
	 Amendments Made: 77, 78, 80 and 81-(Mr. Chope)
	 Third Reading

Tobias Ellwood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am surprised to be standing here to open this Third Reading debate on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, given that it has taken longer than the gestation period of an elephant to get to this point, but I am delighted that we have finally been able to reach a series of compromises with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in ensuring that we can better regulate our town centres.
	As we have heard, this is one of a series of Bills that have come through the House. We have already debated the Reading, Nottingham and Canterbury Bills, Manchester is coming up, and ahead of us are Medway, Leicester, London and Liverpool, among others. All those borough and city councils have sought the leave of this place in order to create the legislation that they believe is required better to regulate town centres. Although some amendments have been made, I hope that the Government will recognise that there is a sense of urgency for national legislation. We need to ensure that more time is not wasted, with councils spending huge sums of money to gain the attention of this House in order to create similar legislation. I am afraid that, until that national legislation comes along, I will support any individual council wishing better to regulate its town centre.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his council tax payers, like mine in Reading, welcome the legislation but question how much of their money has had to be spent on something that could have been resolved very easily by the Government if they had put a Bill before the House? This is not an ideal way to go about solving a comparatively simple problem, is it?

Tobias Ellwood: I firmly agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are questions to be raised on a number of levels about how private Members' Bills of this nature-[Hon. Members: "Private Bills."] Well, it is the private Members' Bill process-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a private Bill rather than a private Member's Bill. I hope, in any case, that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to its Third Reading.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is certainly the case.
	I hope that the Minister will give us a little more detail about where things will go in future, rather than in due course, which is rather woolly terminology. I am pleased that legislation first written in 1871, in the shape of the Pedlars Act, is being brought up to date, and that the people of Bournemouth will be able to benefit from that. A week ago, I was somewhat despondent, faced with 81 amendments that would have significantly changed the Bill to the point where it would have been worthless. They would have introduced a stationary capability for pedlars, carved up Bournemouth and restricted the times when the Bill would be allowed to operate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making concessions on those points, and I hope that he understands that there have been concessions on the other side as well, which have allowed us to get to where we are today.
	Without further delay, I move that the Third Reading be concluded, and look forward to the Bill's becoming an Act of Parliament.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like to say two or three words. I am not sure who will celebrate the most this evening: my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the peddling community, or my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), his council leader, Councillor Stephen McLoughlin and his council. At long last, in their struggle to get this Bill, they appear to have passed at least one major milestone.
	I wish the Bill a fair wind. I hope that the other place will deal with it expeditiously and that we can get it on to the statute book before the general election.

John Thurso: I suspect that the full extent of my rhetorical exuberance in relation to these Bills was already expressed on previous Third Readings, and my view on them remains unchanged. I wish them Godspeed.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) for what he said. The Bournemouth and Manchester Bills will get their Third Readings, and will then go to the other place. I hope that those in the other place will find time for the technical consideration of the large number of amendments we have passed today, in addition to the amendment made to clause 5 by the Opposed Private Bill Committee.
	I remain concerned about some of the detail in clause 5. I made comments about it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was supportive of those concerns last Thursday. Those comments remain valid, and I will have to see what happens in practice. Obviously, the amendments reflecting those concerns were voted down, and my amendment 74, which would have incorporated the best parts of the Reading Borough Council Bill and the Leeds City Council Bill, albeit modified slightly, was not acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), or to their respective councils. I cannot do anything about that; all I can do is argue from a position of numerical weakness, but I have the arguments on my side. We have reached a compromise.

Philip Davies: It is a red letter day for my hon. Friend, given the amendments made. I appreciate that the Bills are not necessarily ideal, as he says, but I hope that he accepts that an honourable compromise has been reached, and that the Bills are now sufficiently amended to be worthy of some support.

Christopher Chope: Exactly; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I did not think that the compromise were right, I would not have accepted it. Once at the stage of forcing negotiation, it would be a foolish person who turned away from achieving a successful outcome, which is what we have achieved over the past few hours. I hope that the passage of the Bill deals with the consequences about which I was fearful: an adverse impact on the borough of Christchurch caused by a move of the "problem" from Bournemouth. I hope that the assurances of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East that that will not happen prove correct in practice, and that the burghers of Bournemouth think that they have had good value for money in investing in this exercise. I know that the process has been long and probably expensive for them, but I will not comment any further on that. As my hon. Friend rightly said, until we get a national framework there will be a dilemma for councils as to whether they wish to spend scarce council tax payers' resources on such an exercise or whether they believe that the problem is not worth the cost of the remedy. That is the view that a lot of councils are taking. The councils in question have not taken that view, and one must respect them for that.
	I support Third Reading and hope that the Bill reaches the statute book before the election, although of course it could have been carried over beyond the election under the private Bill procedure. I am not sure that everybody in Bournemouth understood that. Indeed, there was a bit in the local paper last week suggesting that I had talked out the Bill, but I could not do that under private Bill procedure. There was a three-hour slot and it came to an end. I happened to be on my feet at the end, but I was not talking it out. In that respect it is a very different procedure, as you and my hon. Friend know, Madam Deputy Speaker-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has explained to the readers of his local paper what has happened. Is he about to conclude his remarks?

Christopher Chope: I am indeed. Let it not be said or thought that I am in any way critical of the  Daily Echo, which is the most outstanding newspaper in the country. However, sometimes the pressure on space means that there is not room for the full argument to be-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is not only pressure on space but sometimes pressure on time for business. We have more business to continue with. Is the hon. Gentleman concluding?

Christopher Chope: I agree with you absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think it is almost a miracle that although we have a three-hour slot for this business this afternoon, it looks as though we will finish within one and a half hours.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords]

Consideration  of Bill, as amended .
	 Amendments made: 35, 36, 47, 48, 52 to 54, 58, 72, 77, 79, 80, 82 and 83.- (Mr. Chope).
	 Third Reading

Tony Lloyd: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I have been quite restrained about the Bills in recent weeks, even though the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has occasionally asked me to explain certain positions. However, I would like to get one thing on record, which relates to a discussion that took place last week about whether the boundaries in the Bill should be within a one-mile radius of Albert square. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman expressed the caveat that he did not know so much about the geography of Manchester. The downside was that such boundaries would take in a considerable chunk of the city of Salford. I therefore hope, even at this late stage, that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I was reluctant to accept the relevant amendment as drafted.
	The process has been interesting and important and an example of Parliament doing its job, but I think all hon. Members would accept that it is not the right way to do a job because it does not lead to logical debate. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said earlier, it allows minorities to use the power possibly of reason, and certainly of time, to block progress. That concentrates minds on bringing about compromise, particularly so late in the parliamentary cycle, when we know that we are running out of sitting hours. I do not criticise those who participated-I do not believe that they are right, but I do not criticise them for using the power; I have done the same under different circumstances-but it is not the right way to pass legislation rationally and constructively. It probably serves the interests of neither the citizens of Bournemouth and Manchester, nor pedlars nationally or locally.
	I join those who have said to my hon. Friend the Minister, who I think is sympathetic to the plea, that we need a national framework to deal with such measures in future. If such a framework were introduced on a reasonable time scale, it would probably lead to the repeal of the six Bills on which we have spent so many hours in recent months. That would be paradoxical but the right way forward.
	A genuine problem needs to be addressed. I assure Conservative Members that I do not mean that pedlars should be suppressed. People have always accepted the role of legitimate pedlars. They add variety, colour and flavour to our national way of life. The legitimate pedlar can appear to our benefit in many different circumstances. However, I hope that Conservative Members accept that there have been problems in my city and other places with the illegitimate abuse of the pedlar's licence, sometimes through unfair competition to legitimate traders, who pay a bigger overhead cost and have a greater sense of responsibility to the local community, and sometimes through those who simply trade at unacceptable levels. The Bill tries to deal with that.
	Compromises have been reached. As I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch, he has got significant concessions. He can go back and tell those to whom he has spoken that the concessions are real and were not willingly given. They were given to allow the Bill to make progress. We still think that we have a workable Bill; nevertheless, it is not the measure that Manchester wanted. There is, therefore, honour on all sides.
	In response to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I say that we have the Bill and we will make it work, but it is not the Bill that we wanted. However, that's life, and life does not guarantee to give us everything we want.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The procedure for the Bills has been interesting, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I first called for a national review of the subject on 12 June 2008, which the Government conceded and have now announced. Unfortunately, we do not think that such consideration will happen before the general election, and that is a pity. However, does he agree that some matters have not been aired by the procedure-for example, granting a pedlar's certificate and the need for a photographic pass so that people in any area can see that a genuine pedlar's certificate has been granted by another police force? Perhaps those are minor matters, but does he concede the need to examine the whole issue on a national basis?

Tony Lloyd: I agree. I think I can probably say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister that the incoming Labour Government after the election will want to make genuine progress on the matter. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's playing his role as loyal Opposition spokesperson in helping us with that process. That is right and proper. In that sense, he has my full support for his continued role and relevance on the Opposition Benches in making national legislation work properly.
	However, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need that national framework and to have a debate that lets us look across the board at the fine-tuning that will make it optimal. I must add one note of caution that Opposition Members ought to take on board: circumstances vary between local authority areas, which is why the Manchester City Council Bill is not exactly the same as the other Bills that have been discussed today. It is important to recognise that any national framework will be just that and not a straitjacket, because we need to allow for that variation in local conditions and local needs.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch sought commitments from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) that there would not be an influx of pedlars into Christchurch from Bournemouth as a result of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. I reassure him that there is almost no possibility that there will be a displacement from Manchester to Christchurch because of the Manchester City Council Bill. I hope that with that reassurance, he will be happy to ensure a speedy Third Reading and that it will be legislation not too far in future.

Christopher Chope: I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) for the good-humoured way in which he has dealt with these proceedings. I visited Manchester during the Conservative party conference and stayed in Salford, within easy walking distance of the conference centre, so I was aware that part of Salford was within one mile of Albert square. On a proper reading of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the provisions apply only to the city of Manchester, so they would not apply to the area outside the city but within the one-mile radius. That is my defence on that point.
	The Minister has said a number of times this afternoon that the Government will respond in due course to the consultation. I simply want to place it on the record that paragraph 20 on page 33 of the Government's consultation, which was issued in November, states:
	"The results of this consultation exercise, including a summary of the views expressed, and the Government's response will be published no more than three months after the close of the exercise."
	The close of the exercise is imminent-the beginning of next month. It continues:
	"The results may be viewed on the BIS consultations home page".
	Paragraph 121 states:
	"Subject to the response to this consultation, it is intended to publish a second consultation outlining the way forward in Spring 2010, including a full impact assessment on the costs and benefits of the Government's preferred options and possibly identifying suitable legislative vehicles."
	As a result of these debates and the consideration of these Bills, there is now a momentum for change and for the introduction of a national legislative framework. Those of us who think that that is a major achievement resulting from the passage of the Bills should not allow ourselves to be discouraged by the expression "in due course".

Kevin Brennan: I rise hesitantly for a number of reasons, not least because when I did not speak last week, I received more congratulations than I ever have on any actual contribution I have made in the House.
	The Government have noted carefully the reports of the debates on the Manchester City Council Bill and the other Bills. It is clear from what has been said and what we have learned that local authorities face difficulties because of the unlawful activities of those who seek to trade in restricted areas without street-trader licences. There is little doubt that in some areas, unlawful traders adversely affect the livelihood of licensed street traders and certified pedlars acting in accordance with the Pedlars Act 1881, and other retailers and consumers, so we understand the desire of local authorities to bolster their enforcement powers.
	As I mentioned, the House will be aware that as a result, the Government are undertaking research. That will be concluded by 12 February and we will respond in due course. Three months from 12 February would be 12 May, which is well this side of a potential general election, as I am sure the House will acknowledge. We will do as outlined in the consultation document.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned momentum, and there is now a sense of momentum, as well as a degree of expertise. When Her Majesty the Queen finally signs the Acts, she will note that these Bills started in January 2007, so they have taken almost three years. She might be inclined to wonder what on earth we have been doing all that time. I therefore encourage the Minister not to sit on the phrase "in due course" but to give us a clearer timetable, especially as there is an appetite to see this concluded.

Kevin Brennan: I would not dare to speculate on what Her Majesty might think on any subject. The process that we have gone through is the proper process and we have followed the proper procedures of the House for dealing with private legislation-not private Member's legislation, as one hon. Member mentioned earlier, which is a completely different animal.
	Another point that has been raised relates to the services directive and whether it affects street entertainers. I can confirm that the Government do not accept that it does. The Licensing Act 2003 regulates street entertainment that takes place in front of the public once a local authority licence has been obtained. Street entertainers do not rely on pedlar's certificates and should not be affected by changes linked to the implementation of the services directive. I say that as someone who has engaged in busking on occasion, and who has a next-door neighbour who is a street entertainer and would not forgive us if we allowed anything that infringed on his rights.
	In conclusion and with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to my neighbour, Francis Maxey, who has just lost his wife, Kate Hunter, who was a great campaigner on all sorts of issues and I am sure that she would never have allowed us to do something like that either.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us have sat through many hours of debates on these private Bills. Some years ago, I also had the privilege of chairing what was probably the shortest Opposed Bill Committee on record, although I have not noticed an entry to that effect in  Wisden. In 2010, this process is not well understood by the public, and nor is it fit for purpose. Is it not time that the House considered establishing a Speaker's conference to consider whether a better way might be found to deal with such business?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that I would make a distinction between private and other legislation in terms of the public's understanding. We would all hope, as Members of Parliament, that we were able to communicate to our constituents successfully what we do here. However, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to pursue the issue of the ways in which private legislation might be considered in the future. One's experience of it may vary according to the measure in question, but the House has had a remarkable record of disposing of such Bills, even if sometimes that happens more slowly. It depends on the degree of contention involved. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, but he may wish to write a letter to Mr. Speaker to pursue his suggestion.

UK ARREST WARRANTS (ALLEGED WAR CRIMES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mark Tami.)

David Winnick: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of initiating private prosecutions. The purpose of my debate is to urge that the right of private individuals, including lawyers, to seek arrest warrants for those suspected of war crimes, including those who are resident abroad but who intend to travel to Britain for various reasons, should be retained. The position now is that if a warrant is agreed to by the court, no prosecution can commence without the assent of the Attorney-General, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General knows so well. Presumably the Attorney-General would take into account the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, among a number of factors.
	Senior Ministers have indicated that the right of private individuals to start a process to deal with alleged war crimes could change, hence the reason for this debate in the first place. As will be seen, I would be strongly opposed to any such change. It would also be fair to say that Ministers have come under a good deal of pressure from those on the Opposition Front Bench to change the existing law. The case of the former Israeli Foreign Minister has been put forward by Ministers and shadow Ministers as a reason why a change in the law on private prosecutions for alleged war crimes should be made. In December last year, Westminster magistrates court issued an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli Foreign Minister and currently the leader of the main opposition party in Israel. She cancelled her intended visit; hence the warrant was withdrawn.
	In practice, it is the most senior district judges at Westminster magistrates court who hear applications where war crimes are alleged and it is they who have to decide them accordingly. I have mentioned Westminster magistrates court because, without any disrespect to any of the justices of the peace up and down the country, it would be wrong to come to the view that such matters are dealt with by magistrates in local courts in the usual way. Rather, it is decided in the main at Westminster magistrates court, where senior district judges hear applications accordingly. They have to decide whether the high threshold of evidence, liability and jurisdiction has been met. Moreover, they have to be satisfied that no immunity applies. Anyone currently holding ministerial office would not be subject to any such application, so if the person I have mentioned was the current Foreign Minister-or indeed any Minister-in the Israeli Government, the recent case would not have arisen.
	It needs to be emphasised that there is no abuse of the procedure in this country. There is no question of arrest warrants being agreed to automatically. However, the impression given, albeit not by Ministers, is that it is relatively easy for someone who might have a grudge against a person coming to this country from abroad, who is alleged to have committed war crimes, to go to a magistrates court and, lo and behold, an arrest warrant is duly issued. That is not the case; indeed, in practice it could not be more different. Strong evidence is required.
	I have spoken about those intending to come to this country from abroad, but where the suspect is already in Britain, which is the situation in many cases, it is important for the process to start as quickly as possible. If someone is here, illegally or otherwise, and there is a strong suspicion that that person has allegedly been involved in war crimes-this has nothing to do with their formerly holding ministerial office-the danger is that, if there is no private prosecution, that person will flee the country as soon as possible, knowing that they are likely to be arrested. It obviously takes time for the police and the prosecution authorities to gather the evidence if they decide to go ahead with a warrant, but there is a strong protection available to the victims of alleged war crimes in the sense that they can try, through indirect means, to bring about the issue of an arrest warrant for those allegedly responsible for those war crimes.
	Under the 1949 Geneva conventions and protocols, British courts have universal jurisdiction over those who are alleged to have been involved, directly or indirectly, in war crimes. Those crimes can involve the extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity, and unlawfully, wantonly and wilfully attacking civilians.
	The former Israeli Minister was in office at the time of the Israeli military action against Gaza, and allegations of the most serious nature have been made, because of the manner in which the Israeli action was conducted and the fact that the person in question held such a senior ministerial position. The operation that Israel conducted was known as Operation Cast Lead, and it has been the subject of a good deal of controversy. Indeed, I took part in a debate on these matters in the House last January in which, almost without exception, Members on both sides condemned the way in which Israel had conducted that military operation against Gaza.
	It also needs to be said, in relation to the former Israeli Foreign Minister, that the Goldstone report-the result of a fact-finding mission authorised by the United Nations human rights commission-concluded that much of what Israel had done in the military operation in Gaza was disproportionate. The report said that some of the bombings and killings
	"could not on any basis be justified on military grounds",
	and that Israel had employed a policy that involved
	"the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of Palestinian civilians".
	So it is not surprising, given the allegations and the findings in the Goldstone report, that the judges in Westminster magistrates court decided to issue an arrest warrant.
	I hope that the Government-and, for that matter, the Opposition-would hesitate a good deal before taking away the right of private individuals to seek to persuade the courts to issue an arrest warrant for war crimes. It would be unfortunate and retrogressive to do that. Moreover, I understand that primary legislation would be required to change the existing law. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will be able to comment on that. Do we want to send out a message that we do not take seriously the Geneva conventions and our courts' jurisdiction over war crimes? Time and again, we in the House of Commons have rightly condemned war crimes, atrocities and the targeting of civilians, all of which are outlawed under international law. It seems strange that we should somehow change the law-I hope that will not be the position-because it has been embarrassing for a former Israeli Minister.
	Another argument has been put forward, perhaps as the main reason, for changing the law: that it will undermine the peace process if it is not possible for the person I have mentioned to come to this country. If she came, of course, no prosecution could take place without the consent of the Attorney-General. However, I find it very difficult to accept that the peace process, of which there is not much evidence unfortunately, is largely dependent on a former Israeli Foreign Minister, currently leader of her party, coming to Britain.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has secured the debate and that it has a reasonable time to run. However, does he accept that there is a problem in that the suggestion of changing the rules on universal jurisdiction arrest warrants moves the matter back into the political arena rather than away from it, which has been the general thrust of the Government legal strategy over the past few years, with the establishment of the Supreme Court and all that goes with it?

David Winnick: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. A Government should not intervene in such a way. As he knows, and as I have mentioned more than once, we should also bear in mind that whether a prosecution takes place depends on the Attorney-General. I hope that the Solicitor General's response will satisfy me and the House that the law will remain as it is, but that it is in the overall interest of Britain, and of other countries, including Israel, not to take any action that could undermine our position in bringing, or trying to bring, to justice, those who might have been involved, directly or indirectly, in war crimes. That is an important matter, and I look forward to her reply.

Barry Gardiner: I expected not to make a speech this afternoon, but simply an intervention. I often agree wholeheartedly with many things that my hon. Friend says in the House, and I anticipated doing so on this occasion, but I fear that that is not to be the case. It concerns me greatly that, at many points, his argument relied on the fact that, ultimately, even though an arrest warrant might have been issued, a prosecution would depend on the Attorney-General. That is a dishonest argument, because it suggests that there must be a strong case-I think "strong" was the word he used-with strong evidence, as well as jurisdiction, to secure the agreement of a magistrate to issue the arrest warrant in the first place. My understanding is that there must be a prima facie case.
	My hon. Friend's argument relies on a discrepancy between a prima facie case being heard by a magistrate and reliance on his confidence-or on the assertion that in the case under discussion one could have been confident-that no prosecution would be continued with. That is an intellectually dishonest argument, because it says that someone should be allowed to apply for a warrant on a prima facie case and to abuse the law simply to embarrass a political figure, without the serious intent of believing that a prosecution could follow. That one should continue to allow that, secure in the knowledge that a prosecution would not follow, is not a straightforward position and my hon. Friend is normally a very straightforward thinker on these matters.

David Winnick: I do not want to debate the issues with my hon. Friend because of the time, but the normal procedure is that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker is asked whether a Member who wants to speak has my permission to intervene in an Adjournment debate. I do not object in any way but I hope that time is not being taken from the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rule or custom to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred applies when the debate is limited to half an hour. If we have more time than that-we have considerably more-the rules do not apply and anyone may take part in the debate.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that was my understanding in participating in the debate, which I believe can run until 6 pm, although I trust that it will not.
	This is a difficult and sensitive issue and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should not do anything to stop war crimes being taken seriously and to stop prosecutions for war crimes being brought within this country. However, the serious issue is this: the law is there to be used, not abused. Unusually, in this case it has been abused, and that has allowed for the possibility of further abuses in the future. That could prejudice the proper workings of the Foreign Office and the Government in carrying out proper debates with those who are not subject to diplomatic immunity, as the member of the Israeli Government might have been on this occasion.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am not quite following my hon. Friend's argument. Clearly there must have been some evidence put before the district judge that Ms Livni would be subject to an arrest warrant on the grounds of human rights law; otherwise the district judge would not have given the arrest warrant. He or she must have examined the evidence and felt that there was enough. If it is good enough for a judge to grant an arrest warrant, surely it is up to us to look at a legal process rather than saying that this might upset diplomatic relations, therefore we must change the law.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful for the opportunity to try to further explain the position that I am putting to my hon. Friend. In order to secure an arrest warrant there has to be no more than a prima facie case. That may be something that-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help if the hon. Gentleman faced the Chair and, from his point of view, the microphones.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	There has to be a prima facie case presented to secure an arrest warrant. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North made clear that he believed that there was a gap between the prima facie case being presented, which could secure the arrest warrant, and the security that the Attorney-General would not allow such a prosecution to proceed. It is that intellectual dishonesty that I seek to expose by my remarks.
	It is important that we are able to secure prosecutions in this country in a timely fashion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said, for war criminals who happen to be in the country. My concern is the way in which this situation has created the possibility of further abuse in the future, which might interfere with the proper workings of Government in holding quite proper discussions with politicians not simply from Israel, but from many parts of the world; something it is important for the Government to be able to do.

David Winnick: I am sorry, because I should, of course, have recognised that more time is available to us. Is my hon. Friend saying that the law, as it stands, is okay-I have never heard him criticise it before-but it should not apply to former Ministers who are alleged to have been involved in actions of a kind that I have described? Or do I take it that his argument is that the whole process should be changed, so that no prosecution can be brought and no arrest warrant issued without the Attorney-General's involvement? Is he in favour of that?

Barry Gardiner: I am rapidly losing my affection for my hon. Friend, because I fear that he is trying to traduce my argument. What he describes is not the position that I have outlined. I do not wish to outline my position for a third time, but in response to the point he has just made I should say that I do not think any of us were aware of the possible abuse of the system until this case arose.

David Winnick: Where is the abuse?

Barry Gardiner: The abuse is precisely in the fact that this was done for publicity purposes, rather than because of any genuine belief that a prosecution had any chance of being successfully brought in this country. That is an abuse of the law, which is why it is important that the Government move to try to stop it. I believe that this is a difficult issue, and I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that cases involving violations of human rights, extra-judicial crimes and war crimes should be able to entertained within the UK jurisdiction. However, I do not believe that the law should be able to be abused as it was in this case.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for securing this debate, and for his perceptiveness in obtaining a debate on a Thursday and thus giving us an hour and a half to debate universal jurisdiction. Most of us were expecting a 30-minute debate.
	The House will be aware that I have tabled early-day motion 502, which has been signed by 101 Members who support it. It expresses concern about the restriction of the universal jurisdiction of UK courts in matters of human rights law. The background to this case rests, as my hon. Friend explained, on a number of conventions, but more recently it has rested on the case of General Pinochet. He was in this country on an arms-buying spree in 1998 when an extradition warrant was sought by Spain. The then Home Secretary-he is now the Secretary of State for Justice-granted the extradition warrant and General Pinochet was duly arrested. He then sought diplomatic immunity as a former Head of State, but that was rejected by the British courts. The House of Lords, in its final judgment, asserted that the British courts had universal jurisdiction in matters of human rights law. It did so on the basis of an arrest warrant that was granted by a divisional court. That is an important step forward in international law.
	Those who have read my early-day motion will note that it specifically does not mention any individual case-it does not mention the arrest warrant sought in the case of Tzipi Livni. It is an attempt to defend a very important principle: the right of British courts to arrest people where there is prima facie evidence that they have committed human rights abuses or violated the appropriate United Nations statutes to which this country is also signed up.
	The furore about this matter has arisen-it was, doubtless, what provoked my hon. Friend into obtaining this debate-because a universal arrest warrant was sought in the case of Ms Livni. It was obtained in a divisional court on the basis that there was prima facie evidence that she was a party to crimes against humanity during Operation Cast Lead, when Israel bombed Gaza and 1,400 people died. I was in Gaza two weeks ago and witnessed, still, the remnants of that attack. The arguments for changing the law seem to be coming from friends of Ms Livni who say that to prevent her from coming to this country would damage relations between Britain and Israel. They say that the rights and powers of a court to issue an arrest warrant must therefore be removed and that those powers should be placed in the hands of the Attorney-General, who would decide whether to issue the warrant or not.
	As I explained in my invention earlier, the trend of legislation has been to separate for all time, as far as possible, the authority of the courts from the interference of politicians. That is something to which we all agree. The Attorney-General is inevitably a politically appointed figure. Let us imagine that the Attorney-General had to consider whether to issue an arrest warrant in the case of Ms Livni and that somebody, or a group of people, put pressure on them to do so. They would be put under a huge amount of pressure, including arguments that it was a diplomatic problem, that the Government of Israel and the US objected to it, that various Arab countries agreed with it and so on. It would no longer be a decision based on prima facie evidence or on the law, but a decision based on the diplomatic niceties of the situation and the political pressures under which the Attorney-General was put. Would the same pressures apply if somebody applied for an arrest warrant on Robert Mugabe? I do not know. All I know is that it is quite important that we should base this on humanitarian law and that the arrest warrant should be awarded, or not, on the basis of evidence put before the judge.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend seems to be suggesting that the most important thing is that there should be an arrest. Surely we are all agreed that when there have been war crimes or violations of human rights, there should be a successful prosecution. To simply say that we must secure the arrest and that we do not want to get the Attorney-General involved at that stage is beside the point-in fact, it misses the point. Ultimately, it will be a matter for the Attorney-General and the Crown Prosecution Service whether that arrest leads to prosecution-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems determined to miss the microphones. I know he is trying to be courteous to the hon. Friends with whom he is disputing points, but it is very important for the benefit of those who compile the  Official Report that they should hear what is said.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a fairly obvious argument. There could not be a successful prosecution unless there had been an arrest in the first place. One needs a person to prosecute and the arrest warrant would provide that opportunity. That takes me back to the point: an arrest warrant can be issued only if there is prima facie evidence against an individual. The judge obviously thought that there was in this case. The then Home Secretary obviously thought that there was when he allowed the extradition request on General Pinochet in 1998. There are many other issues. My point is that if we sign up to UN conventions on torture and abductions and to conventions of any sort against humanitarian abuse and war crimes, is it a good idea to fetter our signing up to them by saying, "Oh, by the way, we will take the decision on political grounds because we do not want to upset friendly countries"?
	We had the same debate when the Rome statute and the setting up of the International Criminal Court were discussed. We debated what would happen if the British military were accused under that statute of war crimes. The House took the position that we would support the Rome statute and sign up to the ICC. That was a good thing and I support that process. If we are to defeat human rights abuses around the world, we must be prepared to take the difficult decisions to prosecute the people who perpetrate these crimes.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. The issue here is not whether the crimes will be prosecuted, but whether the arrest process should be initiated by a private individual. That is where the abuse appears to be taking place.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend talks about an arrest being initiated by a private individual, but the arrest warrant in this case was sought and obtained by people acting on behalf of, or in sympathy with, those who suffered during Operation Cast Lead. If he is saying that there should be no option to go to court other than when a politically appointed Attorney-General, of whatever political party, decides that that would be a good idea, surely that is to negate the principle of universal jurisdiction. As I said earlier, that would reduce matters to the level of diplomatic considerations, rather than legal and humanitarian considerations.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is seeking to paint the Attorney-General as a political figure but the individuals who initiated the arrest warrant as in some way non-political. That is clearly not the case, particularly in this instance. Again, it is intellectually dishonest to try to represent the one as simply a disinterested individual who wants to ensure that war crimes do not take place, and the other as a politically motivated individual.
	The Attorney-General, one assumes, has a mature and responsible attitude to ensuring that war crimes are prosecuted where an effective prosecution can be gained. He would therefore be prone to initiate an arrest warrant to achieve that.

Jeremy Corbyn: If my hon. Friend's position is that the Attorney-General would automatically be minded to prosecute, then I am sure they would have no problem whatsoever with there being a universal arrest warrant that could be obtained from a district judge on the basis of prima facie evidence.
	My hon. Friend seems to adopt the position that interested parties, be they relatives or sympathisers of a particular group of wronged citizens, have to be removed. However, if we are to deal with human rights abuses, surely we have to be prepared to ensure that the current situation, which I regard as a huge step forward from what existed previously, is maintained, and that we do not change the law in that respect.
	When the Minister replies, I hope she will understand that there are many people-in organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Justice, Redress, the International Federation of Human Rights, Global Witness and others-who are very concerned about the political statements made immediately after the non-visit of Ms Livni to this country because of the arrest warrant that had been issued. They urge that Britain stand on the side of universal jurisdiction, and not disappear from it.
	A letter signed by a number of people is being sent to the Prime Minister on this matter. It states:
	"The UK must not renege on its international treaty obligations, particularly those under the Fourth Geneva Convention...to seek out and prosecute war criminals wherever and whoever they are, whatever their status, rank or influence, against whom good prima facie evidence has been laid."
	After the end of the second world war, many very brave people used whatever law was available to seek out and prosecute Nazi war criminals, in all kinds of jurisdictions all over the world-including this one. Many years later, as my hon. Friend will know because he was here, we eventually passed the International Criminal Court Act 2001, under which such people can be prosecuted.
	I realise that my hon. Friend may have difficulties with the idea that a person of the stature and opinions of Tzipi Livni could be arrested for war crimes because of what happened in Operation Cast Lead, but that would be a matter for the courts to decide, if and when she were arraigned and a prosecution took place. However, he seems to be trying to put up a barrier that, as I said before, would allow a diplomatic intervention to prevent that happening.
	If we are to be taken seriously on human rights law, we have to be prepared to prosecute people whether they come from countries that we consider to be friends, or from ones we do not. That is the principle at stake here. I hope that when the Minister replies, she will assure us that despite all the huffing and puffing of the past few weeks, she will recognise that 111 MPs from all parties signed my early-day motion, which is a significant number. The legal opinions that she, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have received are strong in this area, and I hope the Government will stand firm and say, "We signed up to all these international conventions. We accept the universal jurisdiction decision of the Law Lords in the case of Pinochet, from which some of this issue stems, and we are not going to change, just because it is inconvenient to some people at present."
	If we are to prevent people from being bombed and killed, and if we are to prevent unreasonable military actions that result in huge loss of life, surely we have to do so through a legal process of accepting and understanding international humanitarian and human rights law, rather than saying it is all a matter of political judgment at the end of the day. I hope the Minister can placate people who are concerned about this issue, and tell us that there will be no change in this particular law, and that no amendments and no new law will be rushed through the House. If there is an attempt to do so, it will be met with widespread opposition from Members of all parties on both sides of the House and, I suspect, in the House of Lords, too, because this is an issue of the utmost principle and the utmost importance.

Eric Joyce: I will not detain the House, but I think there is an opportunity to raise an issue within the terms of the debate. It relates to a different part of the world: the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A number of people from that country are members of the FDLR, which is a rebel organisation. They live in Europe, having left Rwanda or the DRC. Some of them live in Germany and others live in the UK. Under the existing legislation, and under the proposed Government amendments discussed by my hon. Friends, they could still be apprehended.
	The question is a technical one. There is probably sufficient information to arrest some individuals who are resident in the UK, and the UN group of experts investigating the issue has been somewhat hampered by the failure of the UK and French Governments to give it certain information such as telephone numbers, which it could pass on so that those people can be arrested. I understand that that constraint has come about because of privacy laws in the UK.
	This is not something on which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will able to respond immediately, but she may be able to pass it on to the relevant Minister. I recently had a meeting about the issue in general with the Minister for Africa and the UN, Baroness Kinnock, in the other place, and she said she would look into it in due course. However, it should continue be raised in debates such as this, because it is not right just to debate it when it comes to matters African. These things have a way of disappearing from the agenda.
	The Government have introduced amendments to cover people in the UK accused of war crimes and genocide. Because the legislation is going to be amended, facilitating the arrest of these people- [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is referring to something different. The legislation to which I am referring will enable those people to be arrested in the UK and, I suspect, in the meantime, they can flee overseas. They may stay in other parts of Europe, which takes us back to the need for co-operation between European Governments and for providing things such as telephone numbers to allow the UN group of experts to conduct investigations and provide information to the Governments, notably in Germany and the UK, so that those people can be arrested. I simply wanted to raise that matter: perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can pass it on to the relevant Ministers.

Vera Baird: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on obtaining this debate on an issue that has attracted significant attention in recent weeks, and has done so, too, today. I am grateful-and I am sure that he is-for the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on this topic. I admire the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) has taken the opportunity to raise an issue that is close to his heart. If he is not going straight to Falkirk after the debate, and can tell me a little more about the issue, I am happy to do what I can to help him.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk and for Walsall, North were speaking at cross-purposes a moment ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North does not want any change in the law, but the change in the law that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk was talking about was one, I think, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North would approve. We have broadened-I say this in very general terms, not wishing to be specific at all-our ability to prosecute people who appear to be guilty of war crimes and genocide and who are living in this country. That, I think, is where my two hon. Friends got off on the wrong foot with each other.
	The criminal law in England and Wales is primarily territorial. That is to say, it applies to acts committed by people of any nationality who are in England and Wales, not ordinarily extending to offences committed outside its borders, even when committed by British citizens. There are exceptions, which are drawn case by case by Parliament. Some such offences cover British nationals outside England and Wales-for instance, in the case of murder. Some such offences extend to UK residents outside the UK-for example, some sex offences, and war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
	Exceptionally, some offences go further and apply to persons whatever their nationality and wherever the act was committed-for example, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, torture, and the taking of hostages. As a general principle, that exceptional jurisdiction is the result of international treaty obligations. This is universal jurisdiction. It is a vital part of our law, to which we are 100 per cent. committed.
	It is an unusual, though not unique, feature of the criminal law of England and Wales that a private individual may initiate criminal proceedings. That can be done by applying to a magistrate for a summons, which summonses the person to come to court, or by an arrest warrant, which issues forth to arrest and imprison, at least momentarily, the individual in question. The evidence required before a judge is required to issue such process-a summons or an arrest warrant-is very, very limited. The evidence required before a judge is required at law to issue such process is little more than some prima facie evidence that an offence known to the law has been committed by the person named-not a prima facie case, some prima facie evidence.
	Moving on into this process, there is a possible anomaly at present. A warrant for arrest, which is obviously a more draconian process than a summons, can be issued solely on the basis of that level of evidence. As a generality in the case of very serious offences, including war crimes-those that attract universal jurisdiction-the Attorney- General's consent to a prosecution is required. That is as a generality. Without the consent of the Attorney-General, nobody can be required to answer such an allegation. Without the Attorney-General's consent, a summons cannot be issued on the application of a private individual. However, in the case of a request for an arrest warrant, perhaps oddly, but because of a provision in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, there is no requirement for the Attorney-General's consent to be given until later in the process.
	Let me be clear. The Attorney-General's consent is required to prosecute a war crime, torture or any other similar grave breach, and no prosecution can proceed far without her consent. But whereas consent is a prerequisite for the issue of a summons, it is not a prerequisite for the issue of an arrest warrant. That consent can come after the issue of an arrest warrant.
	The net result is that a private individual in the UK can secure the arrest of a non-resident foreign visitor to this country-or of a British person, for that matter, but that is not the topic of this debate-on the basis of prima facie evidence only, which may subsequently prove insufficient to gain the Attorney-General's consent, insufficient for any prosecution to go forward, and insufficient to be taken any further at all by an investigation by the police or the prosecution authorities, let alone insufficient to bring a conviction.
	Although I admire immensely the power with which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North argues his case, I am aware of no situation in the UK whereby the Attorney-General decides on the issue of proceedings. As I have set out, she can consent to an application and the Director of Public Prosecutions usually brings an application, but its release-the judicial part of it-is always done by a judge. That could not be changed; the separation of the powers is quite clear.
	Whatever happens in the issue of process stage, the Attorney-General's consent is needed immediately afterwards. The private prosecution jurisdiction that my hon. Friend is troubled by has nothing to do with the Pinochet case, which was not a private prosecution. The process was issued over here from the Spanish court, and it then became complicated, as my hon. Friend has described, but if the right to a private prosecution were totally taken away, and no one suggests that it should be, the Pinochet event would still happen. The private prosecution is not the foundation of the law upon which we all rely and intend to cleave-namely the law of universal jurisdiction-either. Although some elements arose, the law has moved on extremely strongly to protect more people and to give more universal jurisdiction in the intervening years.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the Pinochet case, the then Home Secretary granted an extradition warrant, and that Pinochet was therefore detained and, subsequently, there was a legal process? However, the then Attorney-General declined to mount a UK prosecution against Pinochet, and he relied solely on the Spanish and, indeed, Belgian applications for extradition. Thus, the then Attorney-General made a political decision not to prosecute Pinochet within the UK's jurisdiction. There was a reliance on the Spanish prosecution.

Vera Baird: Truly, I do not know. I cannot remember whether that is right or wrong, but it is a dangerous mistake to call a decision taken by the Attorney-General a "political decision", because the Attorney-General is obliged to look after the interests of the public and, indeed, the rule of law. When taking procedural decisions in connection with proceedings, they are not acting in any way as a politician; they are obliged to separate all those interests. Having said that-firmly, strongly and clearly, I hope-I do not remember whether the then Attorney-General decided that there should not be a prosecution, whether the matter never arose or whether there was a conflict of jurisdiction and there could not be any prosecution. I could not tell my hon. Friend.
	Section 6(2) of the 1985 Act permits the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over any case that has been commenced by a private prosecution. There are conditions, set out on the Crown Prosecution Service website, under which the DPP will take over such a private prosecution, and the DPP may then pursue the case. However, if the full code test within the CPS code cannot be made out, because either the evidence to suggest a 51 per cent. chance of conviction does not exist, or there is insufficient public interest in it, although I imagine that the second would be a rare occurrence in such a case, the DPP may discontinue a case. Thus the power to issue a warrant on prima facie evidence may not necessarily result in the matter being taken very far.
	However, the DPP may equally take over and take forward a prosecution, and that would involve a police investigation. The police would investigate and, in due course, seize what opportunity they had to make an arrest, if an arrest became appropriate. A prosecution could therefore follow-again, assuming that the test in the code for Crown prosecutors were made out.
	In terms of the processes that I have described, it may become plainer and plainer that if a UK citizen has evidence of war crimes or of another crime that commands universal jurisdiction, the right course to pursue is to take this information to the police so that they can investigate it under the supervision of, or in partnership with, the CPS. There is a specialist unit in the Metropolitan police to deal with those cases. It may become reasonably clear that very little will be lost in doing that instead of seeking to exercise a right to obtain a summons or an arrest warrant, which could have a very short-lived effect and could cause difficulties of another kind to which I shall turn in a moment. Of course, the difference between reporting a matter to the police and leaving it to them to investigate and take further and issuing private process is the private arrest. It may be that some separate purpose is served by that in itself.
	The UK has a duty under the Geneva conventions-the torture conventions and other conventions-to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said: to seek out in order to extradite or to prosecute within our own jurisdiction people who are suspected of the grave crimes in question under those conventions. It is very important to make it totally clear that we as a Government are determined to do our duty in fulfilling our obligations under that law, as we did, for instance, in the case of the Afghan warlord, Zardad, who was successfully prosecuted for torture offences here in the UK in 2005. We are absolutely committed to upholding these conventions and to upholding the principles of universal jurisdiction. There can be no impunity for these most grievous of crimes.
	There can be a potential impact on our international relations if attempts are made by a private person to arrest one of a foreign state's senior politicians during a visit to the UK. There has been discussion about a particular case. We need to be engaged in the middle east, as in other conflicts and post-conflict situations, if we are to carry out our international role as a member of the UN Security Council and negotiate in the interests of our own security. There are inevitably two sides to a conflict, and we need to engage with those who have been, and are, involved in a conflict if we are to be able to try to bring such a conflict to an end or to ease it. It would not be helpful if the use of such a power of application by a private citizen for a warrant for arrest made a person reluctant to visit the UK, notwithstanding that they may have a leadership role within their country and that we need to talk to them about such a matter.
	Before I finish, I want to make two other points. First, I emphasise that nothing that has been said here is at all to undermine the independence of the judiciary, who will consider each and every case of every kind and of every nature, whether privately or publicly brought, on its merits. Secondly, although the issue that brought on this debate concerned an Israeli citizen, the position and the tensions can be equally present with other countries' nationals.

David Winnick: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend recognises that I emphasised more than once that the Attorney-General must be involved in the prosecution. I made that clear, and she has confirmed it. However, she just said that the same situation may apply with regard to other countries. Clearly, this is not about Israel as such; no one could accuse me of having some sort of anti-Israeli vendetta, however much I disagree with many aspects of Israeli policy, needless to say. Is it not the case that if there is to be any change, primary legislation will be required? I would be grateful if she could confirm that. It goes without saying that I would be opposed to changes of the sort that she has described.

Vera Baird: I think that I am right in confirming that primary legislation would be required.
	My point was not a suggestion that my hon. Friend had a particular view about the middle east situation, but that the position of an Israeli citizen brought about the debate in this Chamber. None the less, it is important to say that the position that that situation puts us in, and its accompanying tensions, can exist in relation to other country's nationals, and it stands separate from the position of the UK on any particular political issue.
	I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss the matter and that I have had the chance to set out the current position in the law.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Solicitor-General confirm a point? As I understand it, there has to be primary legislation. Does she intend to introduce such legislation?

Vera Baird: All I can say is that I do not believe any change could be brought about if it were the Government's will to make a change without primary legislation.
	I am glad to have had the opportunity to set out the current position, and the issues to which it gives rise, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North on obtaining this highly contemporary debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.